England's Summer of Cricket 2023, Featuring The Ashes

First topic message reminder :

Wood's pace was not quite up there in that first over though he still was quick. The lengths weren't great. Fine half-century from Khawaja who is closing in on regaining the top-scorer position from Crawley for the series.

VTR wrote:There's a lot of other variables in that stat though. Different day, bowlers might have found their groove, batsmen didn't get going again etc

To clarify, I'm not saying it didn't help England, but am saying that regardless of if it had an impact or not Australia still moved themselves into a winning position and were at least partly responsible for throwing it away. The bookies odds on England winning before the collapse of 4 for 11 had drifted out to around 5-1 and I'm sure I'm not the only one who had more or less given up hope at that point

Just a tin foil hat thought from me here that I've had in my latest struggling to sleep brainstorm. But I wonder if we might hear down the line that the 'new' ball they got was a worn ball from a previous batch of Dukes.

We know how different the batches of Dukes can be. Of course there were the duds last summer when Dukes had their leather supply breakdown. At times in Cook and Root's captaincies we saw England prepare Dukes that swung conventionally for 60-70 overs if it suited the tactics though. Under Strauss and Flower we saw balls that swung less than that to favour Swann and seamers who bowled very economically. Under McCullum and Stokes in this series we again seem to have had Dukes that were swinging less to suit the batting. It's not spoken about as much as pitches being doctored but home sides do 'doctor' the batches of balls they prepare for summers as well.

I may be wrong but I can't remember a time in this series when we've seen a ball swinging conventionally as late as this one did? It was still swinging at 94 overs. It was changed at 36 overs. So even if the ball was only actually around 10 overs old when England got it, which it looked like to be honest, then it was 70 overs old at the end there. But still swinging conventionally and significantly.

Seeing previous batches of Dukes balls from a few years ago behave like that wasn't unusual at all. Whereas we haven't seen the Dukes from this summer behaving like that previously.

Given how incompetently cricket is run at times (DRS being brought in without them checking if the TV gimmicks involved actually worked...) it wouldn't blow my mind if something that utterly inept could have happened. It would be a colossal sausage up if it comes out that something like that had occurred.

I'd just add, this isn't something I've entirely conjured from sleep deprived hallucinations either. During that summer of dud Dukes I heard stories of this from the CC. The balls were getting changed so regularly because of them going out of shape that at times the worn balls available were from different batches. Given the difference between those balls and the 2022 vintage that were as soft as a moulding orange after 20 overs it created some very upset cricketers if they were on the wrong side of the opposition getting a ball they could actually bowl with.

msp83 wrote:Pant is progressing well at the National Cricket Academy. He has started doing weight training, and has started batting and keeping in the nets on a small scale. Reports are that his recovery is progressing faster than expected. Unlikely to be ready for the WC, but be back in action by the end of the year.

That's brilliant to hear, thanks msp. Hopefully we see him back sooner rather than later and able to play as he previously did. He's an extraordinary cricketer.

sirfredperry wrote:Duty281
What I failed to take into account with my piece about historic 4th innings run chases was the covered pitches scenario.

Also, I should perhaps have looked into other factors - such as the shorter boundaries, heavier bats and the limited-over mentality of batsmen of the modern game.

I agree, too, that the 418 4th-innings-to-win record could go soon. Once it does there will be more belief that the sky really is the limit when it comes to last-innings achievable totals.

It could lead to the question of just how many you should set a side if, in the third innings, you have the luxury of being able to declare. Will a team playing England under Stokes dare set them less than 450? At present, you feel that if any side could get such a total it would be England.

This whole business of last innings chases is an interesting study. Obviously "large" targets have been chased down much more often in recent years - for a variety of reasons. But there are also widely differing conditions which impact any individual case so it is perhaps unwise to make assumptions based on past history when contemplating possibilities in advance.

The record will indeed likely go sooner or later. (Pretty sure it would have gone last year if India had set England another 41 runs ! That was a case of good pitch , plenty of time ; and a couple of batsmen in the form of their lives : there will be other such opportunities I'm sure)

Apart from reasons mentioned above we should also note that pitches for the most part do not seem to age as much. Obviously some do - and scoring can become very difficult ; but whereas in the old days the fifth day ( or sixth , remembering we used to have Rest Days ! ) was generally expected to be a dream for the spinners at least ; modern pitches often as not offer nothing much in the way of assistance to bowlers of any sort. That's a generalisation I know - different countries , weather etc - but think it applies quite a lot.

Another factor is that Tests are frequently shoved close together ; like this Ashes Series in which we saw back to back doubles twice and not a lot of time between any. Naturally the bowlers are getting worn down and this tends to affect their chances of defending a target - particularly if they've been made to work hard in the previous innings. That was the primary reason I was not quite as sanguine as Julius re England's prospects of defending a total I would normally think out of reach : with Wood clearly injured , Moeen apparently needing a walking frame , Anderson showing his age and both Broad and Woakes looking a bit tired on Sunday evening I was starting to wonder where a wicket would come from ! Thankfully (from an England perspective ) Woakes was able to conjure some morning magic (the controversial ball perhaps helping as well as the conditions) and once the Aussies were three down it was always likely one more would produce a clatter - for all the reasons canvassed in this thread.

Will Stokes be reluctant to set "achievable" targets in future ? I doubt it : he's managed to defend several now and I believe him when he speaks of being quite prepared to risk defeat in the pursuit of results. Whether other captains will be more cautious is another matter...

JuliusHMarx wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:Mike Procter was a magnificent cricketer.

I always thought picking Procter was a gamble.

I see what you did there , Julius . Though it probably belongs on the Music Morning Tea board...

Player ratings . I have said previously I think numerical "scores" are a bit too rigid as a means of assessment - but always fun to argue over. Won't quibble too much with Olly or Duty over theirs : the comments attached to them are interesting enough in themselves.

I would divide the players into four groups : the ones who excelled and thereby significantly enhanced their status ; those who did exactly what we expected of them to confirm their own worth ; those who were for one reason or another a bit off their best but still contributed - and those who might want to forget about this series altogether.

Australia first . Group A : Khawaja . Had fine late career form coming in ; but a poor previous record in England. Fixed that nicely...a prime reason they retained the urn.
Marsh. Has had the odd good effort in the past (against England !) but not startling figures overall. Here he came in and performed so well he appears to have leapt Green in the all rounders pecking order - at least for now.
Starc. He might not love his economy rate ; but he certainly stood up - despite injuries and wear and tear - to spearhead the Australian attack. Easily the most dangerous of the bowlers. Even when nothing much was happening I felt a bit more nervous when he started another spell.

Got to go out now. Groups B to D later...

OK on with it...

Tempted to add Murphy to the above : nothing startling ;  but 7 wickets at 25.85 , even if that is a bit flattering , isn't bad for a rookie spinner. Plus some gutsy batting efforts.  But probably belongs in group B

...along with :  

Smith. Average of 37 is well down on his usual England form! But still - 1 fine century and two fifties , third best of the Aussie bats - and he caught well - most of the time.
Head . Only other bat over 33.  Three fifties but no big scores. Looked dangerous at times but maybe found out a bit as the series went on ?
Cummins.  Figures not too flash but bowled better than that , I think.  Tired (understandably) as the series went on. Struggled as skipper ; but arguably ensured the Ashes retention with a captains innings at Edgbaston.
Hazlewood. 16 wickets at 31. Lacked his usual cutting power perhaps ; but tidier than some others in the face of England's aggression.
Lyon : Didn't do much wrong until he got injured. Gutsy effort to add handy runs on crutches at Lord's.

Group C :  Warner. Underwhelming average of 28.5 but better than last time here ! Did give them a few decent starts along with Usman , though never went on. May have bought him his few more games to a desired finish in Sydney ? Or maybe not ...
                 Labuschagne. Gets in here courtesy of that hundred at Old Trafford. Otherwise very disappointing for a player so highly rated . Law of averages catching up with a player whose "luck" % has always been very high ?
                Carey;  Started well.  Then carried out a mugging that is variously seen as clever or devious depending on the observer ; copped a lot of abuse thereafter and it might have affected him as his form tailed right off.

And finally Group D : Disastrous for Boland ; who came in with extraordinary early career figures and an expectation that a Dukes ball in England would suit : and left looking like a medium paced hack. One valuable job as night watchman.
And Green too will not have enjoyed this trip at all. Excellent catching his main contribution. One lucky fifty and just five expensive wickets not what was wanted from the fellow widely tipped as the Next Big Thing.  He's young. Will recover - but this was a serious fail.

Will do England a bit later.

As to the Ball Change fuss : yes England got lucky with that switch . No question the replacement served them very well - as the original just had not , even from the start. Which I suppose indicates that balls are more variable than one might think they ought to be . Bowlers take a lot of trouble selecting one to start a match. And even if that is perhaps mostly superstition it is beyond doubt that some balls just behave very differently from others.
In this series we have seen several ball changes by both sides. As was pointed out in the local paper in a very good article by Daniel Brettig , Australia profited at Headingley from just such a switch. This case probably gets more attention because of the dramatic change between days four and five - and the conclusion of the game and series.

Whether the umpires made a mistake in their ball selection is not something I think we can fairly judge from behind a TV screen. I do think the whole business of changing balls (which seems to be more and more prevalent) is both time wasting and difficult to carry out with total fairness. But I am not sure what you can do about it ? If a ball is no longer fit for purpose it's going to be replaced : and that always seems to be a bit of a lucky dip...

While scanning the series details , I note that Australia had four centuries to England's three.

However their next best were five scores in the seventies (71 to 77) ; while England managed some nine scores between 78 and 99 - plus a couple more "low" seventies. Perhaps we shouldn't complain so much that England bats fail to make the most of their good starts ?

[quote="alfie"]While scanning the series details , I note that Australia had four centuries to England's three.

However their next best were five scores in the seventies (71 to 77) ; while England managed some nine scores between 78 and 99 - plus a couple more "low" seventies. Perhaps we shouldn't complain so much that England bats fail to make the most of their good starts ?[/quote]

My man Stewart would and does.

alfie wrote:Will do England a bit later.

As to the Ball Change fuss : yes England got lucky with that switch . No question the replacement served them very well - as the original just had not , even from the start. Which I suppose indicates that balls are more variable than one might think they ought to be . Bowlers take a lot of trouble selecting one to start a match. And even if that is perhaps mostly superstition it is beyond doubt that some balls just behave very differently from others.
In this series we have seen several ball changes by both sides. As was pointed out in the local paper in a very good article by Daniel Brettig , Australia profited at Headingley from just such a switch.  This case probably gets more attention because of the dramatic change between days four and five - and the conclusion of the game and series.

Whether the umpires made a mistake in their ball selection is not something I think we can fairly judge from behind a TV screen. I do think the whole business of changing balls (which seems to be more and more prevalent) is both time wasting and difficult to carry out with total fairness. But I am not sure what you can do about it ?  If a ball is no longer fit for purpose it's going to be replaced : and that always seems to be a bit of a lucky dip...

Yep, agree with that, Alfie. As said before though, I do believe that captains should be restricted as to how often they and their bowlers can whinge to the umpires about the ball. Just one unsuccessful referral in each session should be permitted imo. As you say, numerous attempts to change the ball are time wasting causing frustration to all and biting into the overs that paying spectators have shelled out to see. So often it's just a case of trying it on to get a different ball that might do something rather than the ball being unsuitable. If the ball really does become unsuitable after an unsuccessful referral (or even before one), then the umpires can decide and take action - it's their job!

Regarding the ball change, a comment and a question:

Comment - The ball needed changng because it was damaged after hitting the grill of Khawaja's helmet. IT wasn't a case (unlike the first innings) where we tried every other over to get the umps to change it. Just one of those things.
And it presented with a box of balls reputedly 35 to 40 overs old, and there's one in there that looks much newer, you'd obviously take that one.

My question is where are the replacement balls sourced from? My understanding was that the Test match Dukes balls are selected out of all the Dukes balls manufactured, as being the 'best' quality (as far as can be judged - presumably by measurement and weight plus perfection of the leather casing as new), with the balls for first class matches being the next best.

I believe that in the olden days, when I was young (last century), the replacement balls were batched into something like 5 over ages, so you'd have 30-35 over old balls, 35-40 overs etc - is this still the case, or are they more closely controlled?

Obviously, each Test match will result in up to 4 used balls of various ages (noting for several of the innings in this series, the balls have been approaching or even older than 80 overs), but do the Test matches also get balls from County games in their set of replacements? I'd have thought they would have to especially after last year where each ball in the Tests was changed at least once and sometimes three or four times.

A follow up would be how could a 35 over old ball look in the condition that the one England got? Obviously, there are different levels of abrasion on different surfaces, and the way the game is being played will have an effect on the ball condition (faster bowlers and harder ball striking from the batsmen wil likely abrade the ball more rapidly), but the pictures I've seen of the replacement ball do suggest it may have been wrongly assigned.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:While scanning the series details , I note that Australia had four centuries to England's three.

However their next best were five scores in the seventies (71 to 77) ; while England managed some nine scores between 78 and 99 - plus a couple more "low" seventies. Perhaps we shouldn't complain so much that England bats fail to make the most of their good starts ?[/quote]

My man Stewart would and does.

It depends a bit on how the innings is going overall though - England's second innings in the last test had a top score of 91 (and Root getting out to one he could do very little about - turned and didn't bounce, pretty much the only ball to do that all match), but also two 70s and two 40s, so we got to just under 400, which is a more than adequate score. In that context, failing to get the daddy hundred is less significant. Lords second innings, while Stokes batted magnificently, only Duckett also made a worthwhile score, and we fell a bit short. Runs for the team are runs whether scored by 2 or 5 different batsmen...

One possible way of getting more overs in in the day would be to adopt the county cricket scheme whereby tea is not taken until 32 overs are left.

Yes, this would mean a longer afternoon session, but the evening sessions are already going on for two-and-a-half hours and longer afternoon sessions would mean more overs being bowled before the light goes.

Some of the seats at Lord's for the Ashes Test this summer were £170. That's nearly £2 an over. I know there were few, if any, days during this series when spectators would have felt short changed. But they should be dished up their full menu of 90 overs.

dummy_half wrote:Regarding the ball change, a comment and a question:

Comment - The ball needed changng because it was damaged after hitting the grill of Khawaja's helmet. IT wasn't a case (unlike the first innings) where we tried every other over to get the umps to change it. Just one of those things.
And it presented with a box of balls reputedly 35 to 40 overs old, and there's one in there that looks much newer, you'd obviously take that one.

My question is where are the replacement balls sourced from? My understanding was that the Test match Dukes balls are selected out of all the Dukes balls manufactured, as being the 'best' quality (as far as can be judged - presumably by measurement and weight plus perfection of the leather casing as new), with the balls for first class matches being the next best.

I believe that in the olden days, when I was young (last century), the replacement balls were batched into something like 5 over ages, so you'd have 30-35 over old balls, 35-40 overs etc - is this still the case, or are they more closely controlled?

Obviously, each Test match will result in up to 4 used balls of various ages (noting for several of the innings in this series, the balls have been approaching or even older than 80 overs), but do the Test matches also get balls from County games in their set of replacements? I'd have thought they would have to especially after last year where each ball in the Tests was changed at least once and sometimes three or four times.

A follow up would be how could a 35 over old ball look in the condition that the one England got? Obviously, there are different levels of abrasion on different surfaces, and the way the game is being played will have an effect on the ball condition (faster bowlers and harder ball striking from the batsmen wil likely abrade the ball more rapidly), but the pictures I've seen of the replacement ball do suggest it may have been wrongly assigned.

Mel Farrell, usually a very good journalist, mentioned on the Wisden podcast, also very good, that she'd heard that the balls were worn by being bowled in the nets for a certain number of overs without a batter hitting it. If so that's very disappointing.

I have a pal who played in the Yorkshire Premier League who once took part in middle practice where they were 'wearing' balls for use as replacements though. There were county level umpires there for training purposes with an ICC official so they tied in using Dukes for the middle practice whilst someone was there to oversee. So from that I know that balls are also worn using batters, fielders at times.

It would be completely in line with crickets lack of governance if these protocols weren't even written down let alone sufficient and enforced. So it wouldn't surprise me if vagaries such as above have been allowed to happen.

I don't believe County balls are used mainly as they are changed as regularly as the Test balls. I may be wrong though.

Balls of a certain age can look completely different. A ball that's been left a lot on a green top will be unrecognisable to one that has been Bazballed into those massive electronic advertising boards on a road. So they need a big variance in wear on the balls to get the right ones. Umpires (not players like with the new ball it's vital to say!) are then expected to pick the nearest match from the box. Which clearly didn't happen here. It was a massive umpiring error.

There's been some suggestion in the media that Joel Wilson may have said on the pitch that there wasn't a great match when pressed by Khawaja on it. In which case it would a massive error in organisation at the end of the summer. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they had a certain number at the start of summer, then due to the flat pitches and England's batting they ended up changing the ball more, hence ran low and didn't top them up.

I'd add that I'm not suggesting some conspiracy to get a close finish as has been suggested in the murky corners of internet discourse. I think it's just a very poor system for making ball changes that led to a hugely inept mistake at a vital moment.

Others are right to point out that it happened previously in the series. Australia got a new ball in T2. In T4 England got a clearly newer ball in the second innings, I believe a few of us here commented on it in fact, but it was just before the rain came so we didn't see if it would have hooped around. I think that it's happened a few times is just more evidence that the system needs assessing and improving though. Rather than evidence that all is fine and dandy.

sirfredperry wrote:One possible way of getting more overs in in the day would be to adopt the county cricket scheme whereby tea is not taken until 32 overs are left.

Yes, this would mean a longer afternoon session, but the evening sessions are already going on for two-and-a-half hours and longer afternoon sessions would mean more overs being bowled before the light goes.

Some of the seats at Lord's for the Ashes Test this summer were £170. That's nearly £2 an over. I know there were few, if any, days during this series when spectators would have felt short changed. But they should be dished up their full menu of 90 overs.

The biggest issue with a solution to over rates is how much it's batters as well as bowlers I think. Batters are just as responsible these days. In match sanctions such as significant run penalties or removing a fielder would rely on very subjective calls from umpires on which side is delaying things.

I do think that Tests in England should start at 10:30am and be able to run later to give a bigger window to get overs in. Both due to additions such as DRS and concussion checks that cause delays but also due to the weather and players being slow. If they bowl slow then you can have a longer day in the field basically!

If they are quick you could even slightly extend the tea break in particular. When I've been at Tests with young family members I have often thought that a longer tea break might be family friendly. The long lunch break gives a good chance to get the young'uns up and about. Whereas tea is so short that it's often a decision between missing a few overs or having a restless kid for the final session.

Something definitely needs to be done though. I've been a bit 'agnostic' on over rates. As others have said during the series I don't think there's a direct link between overs bowled and feeling I've got my moneys worth when attending a Test. I'd definitely take 85 overs of quality cricket over 95 overs with more part time bowling thrown in for instance. The higher use of part timers in the past was a big element in quicker rates I think. It's also a big element in county games being able to rush through faster.

We are at the stage where it's having a big effect on game play now.

VTR wrote:

*Including England! England of the 90s, VTR, chased down 305 to beat NZ! With Knight and Atherton opening, Stewart at 3, Caddick at 4 (either a daring tactical gamble or he was simply nightwatchman), followed by Hussain, Thorpe, Crawley and Cork.

That's a great find, vaguely remember it! It's not the worst top 6 to be fair, and we have to believe that Caddick was the original nighthawk there.

The problem in the 90s really was we had Athers, Stewart, Hussain and Thorpe, all decent but not always available. Then the likes of Hick, Ramps, Knight and Crawley in and out of the side before some poor unfortunate would be plucked from the county game to have their career ruined, or someone decided that Craig White was the new Botham and could bat at 6. Really was self defeating until central contracts came in

Yep, Caddick even hit a six in that innings. Stunning as it is to find out, Caddick was the original nighthawk.

And when central contracts did come in, Chris Schofield was one of the original 12 to get one!

sirfredperry wrote:Duty281
What I failed to take into account with my piece about historic 4th innings run chases was the covered pitches scenario.

Also, I should perhaps have looked into other factors - such as the shorter boundaries, heavier bats and the limited-over mentality of batsmen of the modern game.

I agree, too, that the 418 4th-innings-to-win record could go soon. Once it does there will be more belief that the sky really is the limit when it comes to last-innings achievable totals.

It could lead to the question of just how many you should set a side if, in the third innings, you have the luxury of being able to declare. Will a team playing England under Stokes dare set them less than 450? At present, you feel that if any side could get such a total it would be England.

Yes, heavier bats is another good factor.

That last paragraph is something I've thought about before. Teams, particularly England, getting higher chases may lead to more conservative declarations which may, in turn, lead to more draws.

To be honest I had no idea how many overs were bowled the day I went. I think from a few searches it ended up on 80 plus a change of innings. Certainly didn't feel short changed for the amount of action I saw.

Felt more for the people the next day who had to stand around spending ****loads on food and drink for play to start in the evening. Rather see some common sense applied to when play starts and finishes, and how rain/bad light are handled than fussing about over rates

With floodlights do we really need the umpires checking the light meters every 3 balls in an effort to get off as fast as possible.

Duty281 wrote:

VTR wrote:

*Including England! England of the 90s, VTR, chased down 305 to beat NZ! With Knight and Atherton opening, Stewart at 3, Caddick at 4 (either a daring tactical gamble or he was simply nightwatchman), followed by Hussain, Thorpe, Crawley and Cork.

That's a great find, vaguely remember it! It's not the worst top 6 to be fair, and we have to believe that Caddick was the original nighthawk there.

The problem in the 90s really was we had Athers, Stewart, Hussain and Thorpe, all decent but not always available. Then the likes of Hick, Ramps, Knight and Crawley in and out of the side before some poor unfortunate would be plucked from the county game to have their career ruined, or someone decided that Craig White was the new Botham and could bat at 6. Really was self defeating until central contracts came in

Yep, Caddick even hit a six in that innings. Stunning as it to find out, Caddick was the original nighthawk.

And when central contracts did come in, Chris Schofield was one of the original 12 to get one!

I was there when Caddick hit a 6 in a one-day game at the SCG. It was hit towards us and I lost the flight of it so there was a brief moment when I though I was about to be brained by an Andy Caddick 6! Not a huge amount of dignity in that potential injury.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66384125

England's chances of making the WTC final are virtually over after one series because of slow over-rates. England will never learn...

England won 28 out of 60 points during the series, but have lost 19 of them for slow over rates (two point deduction in the first test; nine in the second; three in the fourth; five in the fifth). This now makes England's points tally little better than if they had lost the series 0-3.

Australia have also been deducted 10 points, solely for the fourth test. That could prove to be an expensive setback for them. They of course only missed the first WTC final because of a points deduction for slow over rates, allowing NZ into the final which they eventually won, almost in Denmark 1992 style.

But for Australia this setback is less severe, and because England on the road was their toughest series, they can still make the final. For England, they can't come back from this.

Seems more a fairly silly mechanism to be honest. Do they add overs to bowl on the sub continent when spinners get through a lot of work for example?

I think it shows how seriously that competition is being taken, as in not at all. With such uneven scheduling it's a farce before all these penalties kick in. If it still exists in 5 years I'll be surprised

GSC wrote:Seems more a fairly silly mechanism to be honest. Do they add overs to bowl on the sub continent when spinners get through a lot of work for example?

No, because the playing conditions are 90 overs a day wherever a test is played.

For me the punishment isn't severe enough. I would suspend the England captain for two, maybe three, tests. Then England might learn.

As also said at the time, slow over rates possibly cost England a win in the fourth test. Slow over rates meant around 26 overs of the game were not bowled, and England were just five wickets from a victory.

Seems disproportionate to the "crime". And I question how a fair judgement can be made by the (umpires ? Match ref ?) as to whose fault the slow rates were - as KC pointed out above , the batsmen are often responsible for delays. As are umpires fussing over light meters and taking ages over reviews...

Surprised Australia were deemed "slow" only in one match ? And in that one by the largest margin . And yet England copped it for four of five games. I'd have thought both sides were similarly guilty of dawdling quite often : have no idea how these things were calculated. But a fair bit of subjective opinion by the adjudicator , surely.

Seems this stuff will have serious effects on the WTC tables. But since the WTC system is hopelessly flawed in any case I suppose it doesn't really matter.

Just seems a bit rough on both teams after such a highly entertaining series.

No one cares about the world test championship, each individual series means far more than some contrived attempt at having another title at stake. Were we all entertained by the five match series? Yes, so any further punishment is petty and ill deserved.

I think the explanation for Australia only getting knocked once for it, is I think you have to reach the new ball for an innings to count as "slow". England were at the crease for a good time, not a long time

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Seems more a fairly silly mechanism to be honest. Do they add overs to bowl on the sub continent when spinners get through a lot of work for example?

No, because the playing conditions are 90 overs a day wherever a test is played.

For me the punishment isn't severe enough. I would suspend the England captain for two, maybe three, tests. Then England might learn.

As also said at the time, slow over rates possibly cost England a win in the fourth test. Slow over rates meant around 26 overs of the game were not bowled, and England were just five wickets from a victory.

Suspension is too lenient. Chemical castration followed by 40 lashes is the only way they'll learn.

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:Seems more a fairly silly mechanism to be honest. Do they add overs to bowl on the sub continent when spinners get through a lot of work for example?

No, because the playing conditions are 90 overs a day wherever a test is played.

For me the punishment isn't severe enough. I would suspend the England captain for two, maybe three, tests. Then England might learn.

As also said at the time, slow over rates possibly cost England a win in the fourth test. Slow over rates meant around 26 overs of the game were not bowled, and England were just five wickets from a victory.

I'm not sure it merited much a punishment honestly? How many days out of 25 did we get the full allocation of overs ? In seam dominated conditions are we ever likely to?

If it's a burning issue then extend the playing time and use the perfectly good conditions we have available. Certainly don't think anyone attending was short changed by entertainment because of over rates

Yeah Australia lobbied for the threshold to be raised from 60 to 80 overs (double if the opposition batted twice).

England never batted 160 overs, but only batted once at OT for more than 80 overs.

Still seems a very silly system to me.

Edit - without the change they would've been deducted points everywhere bar Headingley

Also England would've gotten more points for losing 4-1 but bowling all their overs

Khawaja taking to Twitter to complain that the fact they were punished for a slow over rate at Old Trafford because that pesky rain did not allow them to bowl again. Australia were the real victims of the rain in that Test…

Are we saying it would be better if England bowled Mo and Harry Brook for 15-20 overs a day to ensure they met the over rate or had Woakes/Wood tearing in?

How on earth have England been punished more than Australia for slow over rates? Both as bad as each other - Aussies bowled 44 overs in 4 hours at Edgbaston in the 2nd dig, they bowled 5 overs in a half hour at the end of Day 3 here with Murphy on...just because England batted quickly they're not punished for that?

Unsurprising the administrators in charge of the game are totally clueless, as they've unfortunately proven time and time again in recent years.

If they actually cared about over rates, there would be in game penalties - ie. if X behind the over rate no field changes allowed, penalty runs...something that actually impacts the game being played. Deducting points randomly from the WTC not only makes that more of a farce than it already is (how hard is it to make everyone play each other home and away in at least a 3 test series over a 3/4 year time period? If you actually cared about it...)

Also as GSC says, not sure many felt truly short changed by a days play being 80 overs instead of 90 anyways...albeit why we can continue play till 7:30/8:00 on the final day yet not in perfect weather on other days is also stupid. Don't get me started on going off for bad light when you have floodlights on too GSC!!

England didn't bat long enough for it to count as slow 4/5 tests

Bazball saving the Aussies

A team is supposed to bowl 90 overs in six hours. But there's also a half hour extension. Bowl the overs, or get punished. Quite simple. You get punished in other sports for timewasting, this is no different.

It's not difficult to bowl 90 overs in 390 minutes. A team shouldn't have to resort to using part-timers to get the overs in. County sides can frequently get through 96 overs in 360 minutes with no issue. Obviously, in test cricket there are more delays than in county cricket with idiots moving around in the stands, and reviews because Joel Wilson doesn't understand the LBW law, but that's why test teams can bowl six fewer overs in 30 more minutes.

The playing time shouldn't be extended either. That would, if anything, cause players to bowl the overs even slower, knowing they have a theoretically infinite field of time in which to bowl the overs. The pace of the game is already slow enough without doing that.

90 overs in 390 minutes. It really isn't difficult. But I want to see greater punishments. Suspending captains would be a good idea. I'm sure England would magically find the requisite over rate if Stokes was threatened with suspension. Wouldn't be a fan of in-game penalties, personally, but not directly opposed either.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Deducting points randomly from the WTC not only makes that more of a farce than it already is (how hard is it to make everyone play each other home and away in at least a 3 test series over a 3/4 year time period? If you actually cared about it...)

With regards to the WTC, this would be borderline impossible unless the WTC is split into tiers. If there were no tiers this would require 16 test series of a minimum three tests equalling a minimum of 48 tests for every nation over 3/4 years, which would be a mammoth undertaking and a financial disaster. Even if split into two tiers it would require a minimum of 24 tests.

The WTC is currently the pinnacle of test cricket, but it's just in its early days. Reform will be required to make it work better, but it's superseded the old rankings that everyone used to care about.

Duty281 wrote:A team is supposed to bowl 90 overs in six hours. But there's also a half hour extension. Bowl the overs, or get punished. Quite simple. You get punished in other sports for timewasting, this is no different.

It's not difficult to bowl 90 overs in 390 minutes. A team shouldn't have to resort to using part-timers to get the overs in. County sides can frequently get through 96 overs in 360 minutes with no issue. Obviously, in test cricket there are more delays than in county cricket with idiots moving around in the stands, and reviews because Joel Wilson doesn't understand the LBW law, but that's why test teams can bowl six fewer overs in 30 more minutes.

The playing time shouldn't be extended either. That would, if anything, cause players to bowl the overs even slower, knowing they have a theoretically infinite field of time in which to bowl the overs. The pace of the game is already slow enough without doing that.

90 overs in 390 minutes. It really isn't difficult. But I want to see greater punishments. Suspending captains would be a good idea. I'm sure England would magically find the requisite over rate if Stokes was threatened with suspension. Wouldn't be a fan of in-game penalties, personally, but not directly opposed either.

Anyway on with my comments on England's players. (Not ranking points , I should make clear : and the first group aren't necessarily all "the best"  ; just those who made the most progress - though in these cases both might be true)

A Group  : Crawley... Practically none of us would have picked him in June , I think.  But you wouldn't leave him out now...  Justified management's faith in a big way. Hope he can sustain this form !
               Woakes : PoTS .  Fully earned. Used to be seen as a sort of understudy to Anderson and Broad (unlucky career timing) ; but really came into his own in this Ashes - not that he hasn't been often excellent before. Just this one will get him noticed more...
               Wood . Had a pretty poor home record previously , to be honest. Thought he had improved : and he certainly showed that he has. Hope his body will allow him to keep going like this for a couple more years.

Group B :  Root. Reliable as ever with the bat.  Mixed in the field : some blinders taken - some surprising drops. Bowled well too . Freed of the captaincy burden he looks good to go on setting records.
Broad : What can you say except to salute him for producing a fine sustained effort in his last series : most wickets at a good average , continued to limit Warner  ; and took the final wickets. Not a bad way to finish.
Brook : Looked a real rising star coming in : may have been guilty of carelessness early in the series but produced the goods at Headingley ; and while missing the monster scores this time still racked up a good consistent set of numbers.
Stokes : Captain fantastic is worth more than his raw figures - which were pretty good anyway. Leadership qualities stand out. Even when he can't bowl , he inspires in the field. We will forgive him giving Smith a last day lifeline , I think
Duckett : Average of 35 not quite what he'd have wanted ; but not too bad for an opener against Starc Cummins and Hazlewood. Blazing starts arguably add value to the raw figures. Safe pair of hands in the field. TBH I feared he might struggle to live up to his winter tour efforts ; but I reckon he just about did.
Tongue : Only one game but he really did rather well , didn't he ? Especially for one somewhat thrown in from relative obscurity as the injury list grew. Definitely made a marker for the future - in fact I should perhaps have put him in the first group for his promise of progress.

Group C : Bairstow came back from a horrible injury : maybe should not have been tasked with the gloves - though I know he was happy to
take up that role again. Certainly struggled with apparent loss of mobility and made too many errors behind the stumps - though paradoxically also took some blinders. Batting a bit uneven too but averaging over forty in an Ashes as the keeper ain't too shabby.
Moeen: Answered the call to fill in for Leach. Bowling a mix of some dangerous deliveries with a fair ration of pies meaning his figures aren't great - but he really turned up on the last day. Extra credit for battling injuries and a selfless offer to fill in at three with the bat - and to many people's surprise looked the best he had for ages until the groin strain hobbled him. Always great to watch and if his stats aren't up to much it was at least better than his overall Ashes record.
Robinson. I thought he'd be a star of the series - more of a minor planet I'm afraid as it actually happened. Figures might have flattered him somewhat and disappointingly looked to still lack the endurance expected , even before the injury. Not rubbish : but he'd surely hoped for better. Back to work on that fitness !

And finally Group D : Pope was unlucky as much as disappointing : couple of starts not converted : got a couple of devilish deliveries ; and unfortunately injured at Lord's - which was hardly his fault. But having seemed to have nailed down the number three spot and been anointed the heir apparent he will have been hoping to put right his poor Ashes record ; probably won't look back on this series with any fondness.
And lastly : Anderson ... who really did have a horrible time : surprisingly as he'd just come off some excellent form over the winter. Just five wickets across four games was an unbelievably meagre return for the great bowler. In fairness to him he had zero luck - with a few missed chances , and little reward for the times he did beat the bat ; plus his economy was equal with Robinson's and considerably better than anyone else. But he seemed to lack some of his usual threat and as the series wore on I felt he was looking almost resigned that it just wasn't going to happen. Hopefully he can bounce back in India , where he has done well in the past.

Think that's the lot. Better be ; I'm not used to typing so much in one evening...

I would probably reply on two fronts really. I don't think teams are actively gaming the over rate. Certainly not to a great degree, could maybe argue Australia were slow to keep Cummins and Lyon on longer spells earlier in the series. Think it really just comes down to that rate isn't gonna happen without spinners/medium pace bowlers rattling through a decent chunk of them. I get the CC example but 4 days Vs 5 days is probably a bigger reason for the discrepancy.

So who actually gains from those extra 7 overs being bowled on the day I was there. Certainly can't say seeing Harry Brook throw down 10 overs instead of Wood or Woakes would've improved the day. On the other hand, certainly would've been up for another hours play (and spent some more money at the venue as discovering the bars shut at 6).

As it stands, it feels like it just punishes you for playing in seam dominated conditions, to nobody's real benefit. There are plenty of sensible options to get more cricket played across the 25 days, over rates whinging isn't really one of them

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Deducting points randomly from the WTC not only makes that more of a farce than it already is (how hard is it to make everyone play each other home and away in at least a 3 test series over a 3/4 year time period? If you actually cared about it...)

With regards to the WTC, this would be borderline impossible unless the WTC is split into tiers. If there were no tiers this would require 16 test series of a minimum three tests equalling a minimum of 48 tests for every nation over 3/4 years, which would be a mammoth undertaking and a financial disaster. Even if split into two tiers it would require a minimum of 24 tests.

The WTC is currently the pinnacle of test cricket, but it's just in its early days. Reform will be required to make it work better, but it's superseded the old rankings that everyone used to care about.

Pinnacle of Test Cricket ? Oh please give me a break ! The ICC advertising guru might wish it to be so but I doubt anybody else cares much... Aussies would have given that crown away happily for an Ashes win ; and India didn't show any sign of rating it as more than an irritating complication to the IPL and their white ball programme.

Maybe it will be made to work better in time. But I am not holding my breath ...

Even more radically, if an agreed forecaster/radar projects a large block of rain in the afternoon, couldn't we just extend the morning session and if it doesn't show up, just shorten the sessions thereafter.

If you're telling me there wasn't enough cricket played in this series I'd look a bunch of things before people not bowling fast enough I think

Agree with most of your ratings there Alfie. SHows what we expect of Root that a series average of 50 and chipping in with a few wickets only gets him into 'performs as expected'. Was it two scores of 90+ that he got out to absolute snorters?

Anderson just had one of those series - his figures were really poor, but he did actually bowl some half-way decent spells with no luck whatsoever. I do wonder if he's truly past his best now though, or whether it was just a freak series. Oddly, his record v Aus isn't that impressive anyway (averaged well over 30 in home tests against them). Given the reputation of the Aussies as being vulnerable to lateral movement , and him having been the absolute master of this for the last decade, his performances have never really shone out (unlike Broad...)

And as for suspending captains : they already tried that. Led to some farcical antics with change bowlers which detracted from games ; and raised the prospect of teams nominally and temporarily changing their official leaders in order to avoid sanctions. Was thankfully abandoned - as I think these current points deductions probably should be too.

Yeah, it's no more the pinnacle of Test cricket than the Champions Trophy is a wonderful ODI tournament. Though one thing I learned today is that the Champions Trophy does actually still exist!

It'll always exist in our hearts

GSC wrote:I would probably reply on two fronts really. I don't think teams are actively gaming the over rate. Certainly not to a great degree, could maybe argue Australia were slow to keep Cummins and Lyon on longer spells earlier in the series. Think it really just comes down to that rate isn't gonna happen without spinners/medium pace bowlers rattling through a decent chunk of them. I get the CC example but 4 days Vs 5 days is probably a bigger reason for the discrepancy.

So who actually gains from those extra 7 overs being bowled on the day I was there. Certainly can't say seeing Harry Brook throw down 10 overs instead of Wood or Woakes would've improved the day. On the other hand, certainly would've been up for another hours play (and spent some more money at the venue as discovering the bars shut at 6).

As it stands, it feels like it just punishes you for playing in seam dominated conditions, to nobody's real benefit. There are plenty of sensible options to get more cricket played across the 25 days, over rates whinging isn't really one of them

How is 4 days v 5 days a bigger reason for the discrepancy? The overs being lost are a fairly equal amount through the days. It's not as if they get through 90 overs on the first couple of days, then tire and can only manage 80 overs on subsequent days.

'So who actually gains from those extra 7 overs being bowled on the day I was there' - these are the playing conditions laid down. 90 overs in a day, barring rain/bad light. No one says oh let's just play 85 minutes in a football game, who benefits from the other 5? 90 overs a day. And it wouldn't require Harry Brook throwing down 10 overs. Get through the changeover quicker, stop dragging your feet, and bowl the overs.

Lost overs through slowness are actually taking an entire session out of test matches. That's not good. England could have won the series 3-2 had it not been for slow over rates.

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Deducting points randomly from the WTC not only makes that more of a farce than it already is (how hard is it to make everyone play each other home and away in at least a 3 test series over a 3/4 year time period? If you actually cared about it...)

With regards to the WTC, this would be borderline impossible unless the WTC is split into tiers. If there were no tiers this would require 16 test series of a minimum three tests equalling a minimum of 48 tests for every nation over 3/4 years, which would be a mammoth undertaking and a financial disaster. Even if split into two tiers it would require a minimum of 24 tests.

The WTC is currently the pinnacle of test cricket, but it's just in its early days. Reform will be required to make it work better, but it's superseded the old rankings that everyone used to care about.

Pinnacle of Test Cricket ?  Oh please give me a break !  The ICC advertising guru might wish it to be so but I doubt anybody else cares much... Aussies would have given that crown away happily for an Ashes win ; and India didn't show any sign of rating it as more than an irritating complication to the IPL and their white ball programme.

Maybe it will be made to work better in time. But I am not holding my breath ...

Of course it's the pinnacle of test cricket. Now the rankings have ceased to matter, even though I think they still exist, the winners of the WTC are the world test champions. There's no higher accolade in test cricket. So it is the pinnacle.

A dismissive reaction to it is perhaps understandable, because it's rare that in the infancy of competitions they are given much prestige. No one really gave a toss about the first few football World Cups, or even the first few ODI World Cups, now they are understood to be premier sporting events. It takes time for them to grow.

Does it need reform? Absolutely.

GSC wrote:Even more radically, if an agreed forecaster/radar projects a large block of rain in the afternoon, couldn't we just extend the morning session and if it doesn't show up, just shorten the sessions thereafter.

Yes, this would be a good idea. The first session of the final day should have been extended, for instance. They went off at 13:20 for a 40 minute break, rain was forecast to come down around 14:00 and it did. They should have extended the morning session to get more play in. Although, perhaps, the fielding side would have felt aggrieved by this, as Australia were on top at this point.

Could also consider day four of the final test. They stopped for a drinks break just as the heavy rain was about to hit.

If the ball was in play for 85 minutes of a football game it would be a substantial improvement on the current fare. Currently its around 50-55 from what I saw the other day.

I really don't think teams are dragging their feet. Mark Wood literally gets to the end of his run up then turns and runs in immediately.

Duty281 wrote:

alfie wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Deducting points randomly from the WTC not only makes that more of a farce than it already is (how hard is it to make everyone play each other home and away in at least a 3 test series over a 3/4 year time period? If you actually cared about it...)

With regards to the WTC, this would be borderline impossible unless the WTC is split into tiers. If there were no tiers this would require 16 test series of a minimum three tests equalling a minimum of 48 tests for every nation over 3/4 years, which would be a mammoth undertaking and a financial disaster. Even if split into two tiers it would require a minimum of 24 tests.

The WTC is currently the pinnacle of test cricket, but it's just in its early days. Reform will be required to make it work better, but it's superseded the old rankings that everyone used to care about.

Pinnacle of Test Cricket ?  Oh please give me a break !  The ICC advertising guru might wish it to be so but I doubt anybody else cares much... Aussies would have given that crown away happily for an Ashes win ; and India didn't show any sign of rating it as more than an irritating complication to the IPL and their white ball programme.

Maybe it will be made to work better in time. But I am not holding my breath ...

Of course it's the pinnacle of test cricket. Now the rankings have ceased to matter, even though I think they still exist, the winners of the WTC are the world test champions. There's no higher accolade in test cricket. So it is the pinnacle.

A dismissive reaction to it is perhaps understandable, because it's rare that in the infancy of competitions they are given much prestige. No one really gave a toss about the first few football World Cups, or even the first few ODI World Cups, now they are understood to be premier sporting events. It takes time for them to grow.

Does it need reform? Absolutely.

Do you believe that yourself? The highest accolade in test cricket varies from country to country; for England and Australia it's the Ashes and the WTC comes a distant nowhere.