whufc wrote:jackpot jim wrote:whufc wrote:Are slow over rates really that big a blight on the game, from a spectator point of view.
If the commentators didn't mention it could you honestly tell or would it impact your experience watching whether they bowled 14 overs in the hour or 12.
To be honest I don't mind if it takes longer, means I get to keep the tv remote for longer and can scrape a few odd jobs in between without missing too much.
But seriously do you actually sit there getting frustrated because one over took 4:30 to be bowled not 4:10.
Does it really matter if the bowler oversteps by 2 cms?
Does it really matter if the batsman is 5 cms short of his ground?
Does it really matter if you're driving 10 kmh over the speed limit in the city and hit someone?
Does it really matter if your pay is 5% short one payday?
Of course it f***N matters !!!!!!!!!!!!! as does the pathetic slow over rates that the players and captains simply dont GAF about !!!!!!
Bowl 89 overs in a day instead of 90 and that 1 over is lost to the match !!!
Do that over 4 days and thats 4 overs lost to the game
There would have been results of Test matches over history that would have been different if there were an extra 4 overs available.
Agree that half the blokes that just go to the cricket to get shitfaced couldn';t GAF if any cricket was played but those that go to watch it get FO
when they're consistently see unnecessary delays taking place and players just ambling around in no rush
I'm not saying slow over rates are not important I just think there is so many more things wrong with the game rather than something 99.9% of fans wouldn't even be able to tell is happening. Like legit who sits at a game and watches the scoreboard as to how many overs are bowled in an hour and then is disgusted by it.
For me much greater concerns are things that 100% affect my enjoyment of watching the game:
-Tiny little piddly ovals
-Bats that allow for complete miss hits to carry the boundary
-pitches that offer absolutely nothing
-Batsmen in general that cant concentrate for more than five overs and try and play test cricket like a t20.
-Not taking India to the pitches that would be hardest for them to compete in
-Worst level of commentary we have had in fifty years. Game is almost impossible to watch with the sound up.
I would happily give up one over a day to see those other points changed.
They are good points, especially the first four as they concern International cricket all around the world, and I'd probably agree with you, but I also hate slow over rates and think they're a blight on the game.
What is the excuse for it? Absolutely none. It is just another example of the ICC not being there for cricket.
Look at this test. Hasn't been hot. 90 overs in 6 hours?
First day 89 overs in 6.5 hours when only 6 wickets and 220-odd runs were scored.
Second day, similar runs, a few more wickets and a few reviews, so fair enough if it took them another 15 minutes. But no, 6.5 hours and they were still 2 overs short, meaning, with changeovers there were only 84 bowled yesterday.
Regarding bats and the idea of banning the bouncer (and this has probably been mentioned but I haven't read a lot of media lately).
How can they consider banning the bouncer when a batsman getting hit in the head is down to his technique, but the potential danger for the bowler and umpire isn't their fault and a death is an obvious, foreseeable accident (if that's not a tautology) waiting to happen. If anything , the most dangerous ball for a batsman is a short ball that bounces more that expected and might catch him around the throat or upwards.
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:42 pm
