tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post5516607492925265347..comments2024-03-18T23:33:45.536-07:00Comments on A CRICKETING VIEW: Australia's DayKartikeya Datehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03512491310629949028noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-81531846269566038042009-07-11T21:05:39.342-07:002009-07-11T21:05:39.342-07:00The over-rate applies over both innings of the mat...The over-rate applies over both innings of the match, so (in this case) Australia would be 2+6.5 = 8.5 overs behind, less other allowances. That's more than the 5 overs they can get away with.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-34764983032343561292009-07-11T11:11:26.944-07:002009-07-11T11:11:26.944-07:00I don't think the fine for slow overrates is p...I don't think the fine for slow overrates is purely on account of arithmetic.That Perth was i think because it was particularly egregious. Australia bowled 22 overs on the third morning - 8 overs short.<br /><br />By your argument (based on simple numbers), they should not have been fined in either case, because after making the required deductions (360 - 22 - 8) Australia bowled 80 overs in 330 minutes. That means they are 2 1/2 overs behind, which is well within the 5 overs for which a fine is not imposed.<br /><br />Similarly in the first innings it comes down to 98 overs in 420 minutes - here they are 6 overs short (not counting any site screen breaks etc, third umpire referrals etc.) over 98 overs. Also marginal.<br /><br />In the Nagpur case, i think the Perth fine had something to do with it.<br /><br />Another thing you will find in the whole overrate thing is that teams that win rarely get fined.Kartikeya Datehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03512491310629949028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-14976903407506473922009-07-10T17:38:33.622-07:002009-07-10T17:38:33.622-07:00The Australians were fined for a slow over-rate in...The Australians were fined for a slow over-rate in that Perth Test. I think I'm right in saying that that fine was the reason why Ponting bowled Hussey after tea in Nagpur - otherwise it would have been a second over-rate violation in 12 months and he would have been suspended for at least one of the Tests against New Zealand.<br /><br />In India's bowling 50 overs in 240 would have been close to the required over-rate. Nine wickets makes 240min into 222min. A drinks break or two brings it down to 218 or 214. It only takes a sightscreen delay/third umpire decision/etc. and you're down to 210min and the over-rate is ignored.<br /><br />In the second innings, the nine wickets make the 396min into 378min. Three drinks breaks would make that 366. Other delays would make it around 360 or so. You need to bowl 90 overs in 360 minutes; India bowled 87, less than the 5 needed before a fine is imposed.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-25860150585509270142009-07-09T18:38:46.650-07:002009-07-09T18:38:46.650-07:00David.. i know that. But in practice it never come...David.. i know that. But in practice it never comes down to this. Captains have almost never been fined for slow overrates in low scoring games, despite the fact that overrates are invariably very poor in these games. As a case in point see the Perth Test in 2008.<br /><br />Australia bowled first and spent 450 minutes bowling their 98.2 overs. In response, India spent 240 minutes bowling 50 overs. Australia then spent 360 minutes bowling 80.4 overs. In the 4th innings India bowled 86.5 overs in 396 minutes.<br /><br />None of these innings had overrates approaching anywhere near 15 overs per hour. Each of the innings lasted over three and a half hours. Yet the game was over in 4 days.<br /><br />This overrate ruling is reasonable, because the regular fall of wickets meant that it could not be established that the slow overrate was delaying the game.<br /><br />In practice the application of the overrate rule has been very lenient. It is only ever applied when a fielding side gets sent on a leather hunt over say 2 days and their overrate slows down as a result.<br /><br />In most instances sides bowl about 24-25 overs in the first two sessions of play and then bowl 40 or so overs in the remaining 150 minutes (including the extra 30).<br /><br />So if you actually look at the practice of the overrate ruling, you will find that it is applied not merely by accounting for the fall of wickets or length of the innings, but has invariably been applied only when it was deemed by the referee that the slow overrate delayed the game - denied the opposition a fair chance to win.Kartikeya Datehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03512491310629949028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-789247950014236852009-07-09T17:50:40.325-07:002009-07-09T17:50:40.325-07:00However, slow overrates don't matter if the bo...<i>However, slow overrates don't matter if the bowling side bowls the batting side out.</i><br />This isn't correct. The over-rate is only ignored if the team is bowled out within 3.5 hours (+ 20min for wickets and 4min for each drinks break, plus other stoppages).<br /><br />Any longer than that and the usual penalties apply.David Barryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08378763233797445502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-67857530305727331562009-07-09T16:36:37.686-07:002009-07-09T16:36:37.686-07:00I think Dhoni is the master of this strategy. He s...I think Dhoni is the master of this strategy. He seems to have worked it out to a T. But it must be said he has the likes of Zak and Ishant to execute his strategy to perfection. Apart from delaying tactics, he packed the offside, and asked his bowlers to adhere strictly to one side of the pitch. It takes some discipline, and the bowlers sure enough responded quite well.<br /><br />The strategy saps the momentum away from the batting side, and Dhoni resorts to this strategy usually when the opposition go through a session or so dominantly. <br /><br />If England do it, they could actually turn this to their favour. It is a defensive strategy on the face of it, but tactically it is attacking because it preys on the minds of the batting side. <br /><br />And it certainly is far better than Nasser Hussain's Ashley Giles strategy to Tendulkar.<br /><br />However, I doubt England have the necessary discipline though. That said, the Aussie batting doesn't have the aura of its past.Adityanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-81802868662836664882009-07-09T14:52:55.604-07:002009-07-09T14:52:55.604-07:00It will take great skill for Australia to wait out...It will take great skill for Australia to wait out a high quality strangle.<br /><br />What England want is to disturb the rhythm of the Australian batsmen. This would be the point of a defensive tactic.<br /><br />But i think you are right to some extent. If Australia are interested in playing carefully (and Ponting's Australian middle order is a more circumspect one than Steve Waugh's was), then England's job will be that much harder.<br /><br />But in any event - slowing down the game and killing the runs keeps England ahead in the game for a longer period of time.Kartikeya Datehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03512491310629949028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21636894.post-25615464670491374032009-07-09T14:12:46.303-07:002009-07-09T14:12:46.303-07:00Mate
Although this is the first test - England wo...Mate<br /><br />Although this is the first test - England would be stupid to try the defensive tactic out. They need to make all the running in all the tests.<br /><br />If after 5 tests, the score reads 0-0, Aus keep the urn and if you ask any Aussie member they would take it. <br /><br />Australia WILL NOT gamble in any game. 5 draws will suit them just fine. All they want to do is avoid a repeat of 05, have the Urn with them on the way back.Tifosi Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12526354308121450394noreply@blogger.com