OVER rates are perhaps the most boring hot topic ever. Nevertheless, many headlines have been written over the last few weeks with many players offering their opinions on the subject. I think it’s fair to say that the players don’t consider them to be relevant at all. Not that we needed them to say that explicitly; their actions make it very obvious.

I strongly disagree.

It is not often I disagree with Ben Stokes but he has got it wrong here. Stokes was penalised – not for the first time – after England’s test match in New Zealand for their poor over rate. Stokes made the point that the game finished on the fourth day and therefore the rate of play was irrelevant. In the past, Stokes has argued that the quality of the cricket played by England also rendered the over rate irrelevant.

There are problems with each of these notions. Superficially, Stokes is right that the game finished well within time and that is to England’s credit. However, those inside the ground on day’s one, two, and three were denied entertainment that they had paid for. In England, a test match at Lord’s costs in the region of £140 per day. 90 overs are expected to be bowled each day so let’s call that £1.50 an over. If England are denying paying customers of five overs that’s £7.50 that the punter has wasted. Stokes' comments were at best ignorant. This is cricket’s version of shrinkflation.

The quality argument is an interesting one but - at risk of sounding like a character from The Inbetweeners – it’s not really relevant, is it? I reject the notion that there is any dependent relationship between slow play and good play, or vice-versa. It is clear that players are ambling between overs. To my mind, there is no offset. It is great that England are increasing the ‘quality’ of test cricket through their ‘Bazball’ brand, but they could easily do that for 90 overs a day rather than 80.

Other players have made the point that DRS and other time-consuming interruptions are more prevalent in today’s game. That is true but these are already taken into account by match officials. Again, it is irrelevant. 

There is a perception in some quarters that cricket is a slow game. Statements like those of Ben Stokes and Mitchell Starc are not going to help that perception. At a time when test cricket is under threat in certain parts of the world, players should be doing all they can to attract and retain interest. It is arrogant of the English, Australians, and Indians to expect fans to continue to show up despite not getting value for money, even in their respective markets. The crowds for England’s games against Sri Lanka and the West Indies this summer were not great. In other parts of the world, they are much worse. 

I think the penalties for slow over-rates should be harsher. I’d go as far to say that if a captain is penalised for slow play on day one, they should not be able to play on day two. Suspensions must follow quickly for repeat offenders. Points deductions in the World Test Championship are not a deterrent. The officials must go further.

Stokes may think he’s saving test cricket, and to some extent, he might be. The public, however, are sensitive to cost and Stokes and others should be acutely aware of this before making such statements in future. Cricket doesn’t need a hero; it needs everyone working together to deliver the best product.

SUPPORT THIS WEBSITE - buy from Amazon using this link: https://amzn.to/4hoMQbS
 

By Leon Parrott