Should 8 ball overs be revisited in order to speed up over rates?

[The Outsider]

One thing pretty much everyone following any form of cricket can agree upon are the poor and sometimes downright shoddy overrates. The ICC has tried many things half heartedly over the last few years, like banning certain captains for being slow on the clock in 45^o C heat while letting others of. They've also imposed 'hefty' fines like $2000 on the captain and team or most of the time just conveniently closed their eye to the malaise. I think it's exploitation of the paying public to have them stay much later than the advertised hours for a game only to dump more commercials on them or worse still a game losing out on overs due to tardiness. The on field umpires show no significant attempt to speed things up. Would a return to 8 ball overs improve the situation? Most of the delay is between overs and longer overs are sure to cut down on the number of breaks in the game and the constant field adjustment and strategies discussed. The flip side is that whether it will weigh the game a bit more in the favor of the batsman with the faster bowlers tiring a bit towards the end of the over? Maybe, but it is likely to be compensated by bowlers having greater number of deliveries at their disposal to 'work' a batsman over. I think it's an idea worth trying out.

[Sachinism]

Bowlers will just complain everything is going against them. Shorter boundaries, flat wickets, chunky bats and now they have to extra hard to bowl 8 balls per over

[DomainK]

No. It will be very difficult for bowlers and as you mentioned, sometimes the matches are played in extreme weathers where an 8-balls over will be quite a toll on a fast bowler. The bowlers will intentionally take more time between deliveries to gather more energy leading to wastage of time.

[vvvslaxman]

Sohaib Akhtar's career would have been over as early as in 1999 if they had had 8 ball over

[Gunner_Mania]

May be 4 ball overs are the answer.

[Serani]

Less time for adverts between overs, indian TV not happy.

[bunny]

Nope 'coz 20-20 will have to be called 15-15 :)

[thevortex]

Exploitation of the paying public?!!! Am I reading this right? So, it does not matter that factors such as heat, humidity etc. affect the players? If the game goes exactly according to what the broadcasting/TV companies like and what the spectators want, then what about the players? We MUST stop thinking about players of the game as paid employees functioning for a business enterprise. However much Modi and others want that to be so, this is still a game, not entirely a business. The game can help make business but the day it becomes completely about business, is the day it stops being a game.

[Roshanrocks]

Less time for adverts between overs' date=' indian TV not happy.[/quote'] i was gonna say the same thing... without the "India" in it....

[teacup]

Agree with the OP. Should also bring back the back-foot no-ball. It would be easier for the umpires to switch from looking at the bowling crease to looking at the ball with the extra fraction of a second available for them. The batsman would know it is a no-ball that crucial fraction of second earlier and adjust his stroke accordingly. P.S: A change in the thread-title is in order. Increasing the number of balls in an over will actually slow down the over-rate :)

[h4te]

Yes. We should also make the 30 yard line circle the boundary, and there should be a net 30 yards in height, and any batsmen that hits the net is automatically out. We should also legalize performance enhancing drugs so that the fast bowlers don't need a long run-up to bowl fast, and they can get through the overs quickly because of the added stamina. The next-in-line batsmen should be the leg-umpire so that the turn-over time is very little when the batsmen gets out.

[b555]

seeing this i remember a article : Back to the future: telly's vision of eight-ball-over Tests By Stephen Brenkley Sunday, 22 June 2003

"It was a long, hot day in July on the fourth and final day of the Test, and a substitute fielder ran on to allow the opening bowler a rest after his long spell of eight-ball overs. The sub took up his position as one of the minimum two close catchers. It was the annual play-off between the top two countries in the first tier of the Test Match Championship. "It was a long, hot day in July on the fourth and final day of the Test, and a substitute fielder ran on to allow the opening bowler a rest after his long spell of eight-ball overs. The sub took up his position as one of the minimum two close catchers. It was the annual play-off between the top two countries in the first tier of the Test Match Championship. "The paceman had already been shown a yellow card by the umpires for his slow over- rates, which the official had explained lucidly to the television audience via his microphone from the uniform, drop-in pitch. If this continued the umpire would also have to announce how many runs would be added to the batting team's score as a penalty." This is an outline of the way Test cricket may, or may not, be played in the future. It was delivered in deadpan, provocative style to delegates at the International Cricket Council's annual forum last week. The messenger was Andrew Wildblood, senior international vice-president for IMG/TWI. Since TWI (Trans World International) are the television production arm of IMG (International Management Group), responsible for the screening of thousands of hours of international cricket throughout the world, the delegates hung on his every word. What telly says may have to go, on the grounds that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Should anybody accuse Wildblood of using his position as a rights arranger to change the game, he was adamant: "I would say that I am a traditionalist, but I am also anxious for the future of the Test match game, because of a meeting I had with a senior broadcaster in India." The senior broadcaster said, alarmingly, that he was not interested in Test cricket on the box, only one-dayers. Considering the revered status of cricket in India the concerns are understandable (though clearly he must have been watching Indian soaps instead of Test matches lately). If Tests do not play on the television - in too many places almost their sole raison d'être - they will not play anywhere. If Wildblood's ideas seemed at first glance as far-fetched as they were wide-ranging, it was spotted that when a show of hands was asked for on the introduction of the eight-ball over the chief executive of the ICC, Malcolm Speed, raised his in favour. Speed is beginning to reveal hitherto hidden insurrectionary depths beneath that rigid lawyer's countenance: in his speech to the forum he floated the idea of a third umpire on the field. Wildblood went much further. The provocateur gave the illustration of the Mini car to support his contention that "good products respond to change to maintain consumer relevance while retaining core values". The Mini, still small and compact, has evolved in design over its 43 years. Test cricket has been around for somewhat longer, in which time, it could be reckoned, its main changes have been the extension of matches from three days to five and the growing influence on its texture of one-day cricket. Wildblood said that eight- ball overs (which used to be bowled in Australia) would reduce the number of breaks in the game while increasing the number of balls bowled in the day. (Under his scheme, 75 eight-ball overs would replace 90 six ball overs.) He surprisingly advocated only the sparing use of technology to help umpires make decisions; authority should be restored to umpires on short-pitched bowling (because the game needs pacemen and spectators love them). Cricket might also benefit from a return to white clothing in all forms of the game. "Does coloured clothing do more harm to the Test game than the one-day game?" he asked. It was when Wildblood ventured into one-day territory that he started expanding his strokeplay. He suggested 10-ball overs, two formats, of only 30 overs a side and 15 overs a side, and the outcome of rain-reduced matches to be decided on the aggregate of boundaries. The ICC, meanwhile, have decided not to extend technology, to pursue the market for cricket in the USA, and were bullish about the prospects of paying up to $50m compensation to the Global Cricket Corporation, the rights-holders to ICC tournaments, for contractual breaches in the recent World Cup. The ICC are determined to be progressive. But, as for Wildblood's ideas, they may have to wait until 2084.

[b555]

a very old but a good article

[gaurav92]

Yes. We should also make the 30 yard line circle the boundary' date=' and there should be a net 30 yards in height, and any batsmen that hits the net is automatically out. We should also legalize performance enhancing drugs so that the fast bowlers don't need a long run-up to bowl fast, and they can get through the overs quickly because of the added stamina. The next-in-line batsmen should be the leg-umpire so that the turn-over time is very little when the batsmen gets out.[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:

[thevortex]

Yes. We should also make the 30 yard line circle the boundary' date=' and there should be a net 30 yards in height, and any batsmen that hits the net is automatically out. We should also legalize performance enhancing drugs so that the fast bowlers don't need a long run-up to bowl fast, and they can get through the overs quickly because of the added stamina. The next-in-line batsmen should be the leg-umpire so that the turn-over time is very little when the batsmen gets out.[/quote'] Brilliant h4te! And even though this is all very funny, it is really not. Cricket is not something that is being played solely for the benefit of popcorn munching spectators sitting in front of a TV. Its the other way round. Because the players enjoy playing, the spectators enjoy watching.

[Zelig]

Hell YES..let them die.They always complain "flat wickets here, flat wickets there, big bats, short boundaries, wonly one bouncer per over..." I'm getting sick of these:mad:

[The Outsider]

Exploitation of the paying public?!!! Am I reading this right? So, it does not matter that factors such as heat, humidity etc. affect the players? If the game goes exactly according to what the broadcasting/TV companies like and what the spectators want, then what about the players? We MUST stop thinking about players of the game as paid employees functioning for a business enterprise. However much Modi and others want that to be so, this is still a game, not entirely a business. The game can help make business but the day it becomes completely about business, is the day it stops being a game.

Without getting too emotional, are you happy with the over rates in cricket? I can show you numerous instances of tardy over rates even in conditions which did not have heat and humidity (for which the referee should make an allowance). Contrary to what you are saying, slow progress of the game is exactly how the TV companies want it, for they get more air time for their commercials.

[thevortex]

Without getting too emotional' date=' are you happy with the over rates in cricket? I can show you numerous instances of tardy over rates even in conditions which did not have heat and humidity (for which the referee should make an allowance). Contrary to what you are saying, slow progress of the game is exactly how the TV companies want it, for they get more air time for their commercials.[/quote'] I am perfectly happy with it. What is more I positively love those exchanges where a diminutive Tendulkar would look up to a towering Prasad and plan the moves and the field. And for a change - it gives the commentators something actually cerebral to speak about instead of talking about 'India's largest tyre company' or a 'DLF'er'! Over rate in and of itself should not be a concern. If the captain and the fielders take the time to make the right moves, then that is fine. If the batsmen take too many breaks then penalize them. And if the bowlers concede too many extras, penalize them. But there can really be no hard and fast rules. Because that would not be cricket. The Chennai climate has set itself up nicely as an exception. It felled the mighty Tendulkar and today threatened to consume Bollinger and Gambhir. In such cases you really cannot have hard and fast rules. This is cricket, after all, mate! The spirit is more important. You know what I would like. Impose restrictions or even no-ball people like Raina who saunter into the crease and purposely and wantonly stop from delivering the ball if the batsman advances down the track. Thoroughly deceitful and a low down shame, if you ask me. It is not as if they lost their step or anything. They were outsmarted so they respond by just not releasing the ball. That is just not on.

[thevortex]

Oh I forgot to add. The slow pace of the game perhaps helps the media companies in the short term. But I think it wont be too long before the cable/dish companies offer the long suffering public the choice of ad-free telecasts. Or at least ones with just ticker ads and the like. Something's gotta give - as they say! :)

[Gunner_Mania]

Oh I forgot to add. The slow pace of the game perhaps helps the media companies in the short term. But I think it wont be too long before the cable/dish companies offer the long suffering public the choice of ad-free telecasts. Or at least ones with just ticker ads and the like. Something's gotta give - as they say! :)

Don't think will happen in the near future. It is a game that is followed by masses including those who don't have money for the next meal. They will never pay over the odds for watching cricket ad free and the broadcasters would need them to pay over the odds if they have to sell an ad free premium content. India has had satelite tv for over 15 years now and we must be the only country probably in the world who pay money for pay channels and still get ads. HBO - wherever it is a pay channel shows ad free movies , but not in India.