What to do about Test cricket’s slow play problem?

It has become an unwanted story of England’s series against India.

Slow over-rates. A topic frequently discussed but that never goes away.

Just 72.3 overs were bowled on day two of the third Test at Lord’s.

That means, including the necessary time taken for a change of innings, 15 overs were lost from the match not because of rain or bad light but because of the slowness of play.

In a five-day Test, 90 overs are scheduled for each day.

To prevent teams tactically wasting time to ensure a draw all of the overs must be bowled on the fifth day barring interruptions for the weather but, on the previous days, the overs must be fitted into the six hours of play, with an extra half an hour made available at the end of the day.

While time can be made up for overs lost to the weather, there is no such provision when the reason is simply slow play. If overs are not bowled in that time they are lost from the match.

There are some penalties already in place in the International Cricket Council’s playing conditions but they have limited impact.

An umpire can, after an initial warning, award five penalty runs to an opposition if one team is deemed to be wasting time. This rule has never been enforced in Test cricket.

A stop clock was also introduced last month where a timer counts down from 60 seconds between overs. Again, five penalty runs can be awarded here but, despite warnings during the first two Tests, neither captain was punished.

More common are fines against captains and, in the World Test Championship (WTC) league phase, points deductions.

At the end of a WTC match various caveats are taken into accounts, such as injuries and umpire reviews, and a calculation is made as to how far behind the required over-rate a team was.

The regulations state: “A team will have one point deducted from its points total for each penalty over it incurs.”

The over-rate debate is not new.

The number of overs bowled per hour has dropped steadily throughout the history of Test cricket, in part down to developments in the game such as umpire reviews, boundary checks, concussion protocol and TV advert breaks.

Prior to World War Two the average over rate was around 21 per hour. That dropped to 18 between 1945 and 1974, 14.3 from 1975 to 1999 and 14 since 2000.

Things have taken a further turn in this series. The over-rate across the first two Tests was 13.3 per hour with 39 overs lost in the first Test and 19 in the second.

A major factor has been the ball. Both teams have repeatedly asked for the ball to be changed because it has gone soft and out of shape. This has led to delays to allow umpires to check the shape and possibly replace the ball.

There have been other lengthy breaks too.

On day two at Lord’s the first drinks break lasted around six minutes and 20 seconds, rather than the standard four.

Given the high temperatures in London, there have been regular unscheduled drinks breaks and pauses for batters to change their gloves.

Both England batter Joe Root and India bowler Jasprit Bumrah were asked about the issue after the second day’s play.

Root suggested teams should only be allowed three attempts to change the ball per innings to save some time.

“I don’t want to get myself in trouble by trying to rewrite the thing but that’s one way of policing the ball thing,” Root said.

“In terms of over rates, it can be quite difficult on a day like today.

“We’re not used to this, are we? Thirty [degrees] in England feels like 45 elsewhere. But I guess just try and keep on top of it as much as you can.”

A point of debate is whether rushing through the overs would diminish the quality of play. Although time was lost, Friday’s play was action-packed.

There are also fewer draws in Tests now than ever before, meaning a result is still found despite the overs lost.

“It’s hot out there,” said Bumrah. “It’s tough on the bowlers.

Former England captain Michael Vaughan:

When it gets to the fifth day you have to bowl the 90 overs. I have no idea why on days one, two, three, or four we see the game played at a snail’s pace.

On day five when the players and umpires know 90 have to be bowled they are running around, there won’t be as many unofficial drinks breaks.

I would make it simple. You have to bowl 90 overs in a day regardless of the time.

BBC chief cricket commentator Jonathan Agnew:

I have spent 30 years banging on about over-rates. On the face of it is it boring but it is actually really important because it is just a terrible look.

You cannot have up to 15 overs not being bowled. It is totally unacceptable.

It is like going to the cinema, watching Pearl and Dean and then the lights go on and you are kicked out. Fines don’t work.

Now teams have time allowed for breaks but they should be penalised on that. There should be a stop clock for drinks breaks. Every time someone comes on to the field to bring gloves or drinks on a clock should start and that counts against that team.

Then you have to impose penalty runs. It is the only currency players understand.

Test Match Special statistician Andy Zaltzman:

The general play in Test cricket is really good but surely it would be improved by having more of it per day.

There is a clock between overs now and the only problem is players completely ignore it.

You need an in-game penalty of runs against the batting or bowling side if they are obviously wasting time, maybe with a green or yellow card warning system.

Former England captain Sir Alastair Cook:

The issue has been going on for years.

I am not blaming the players. It is time for the ICC and the umpires to step in. The speed of play is their responsibility. Drinks breaks need to be shorter.

As players you will always push the boundaries. A 10:30 start would allow another half an hour but would just add to the overall issue.

As a captain the last thing you are worried about is the speed of play. You are aware of it because you get fined but the game is far more important for you. It is about winning that moment.

BBC cricket commentator Simon Mann:

We need a proper penalty to concentrate players’ minds. You could have a run penalty but it is a little artificial.

I would calculate how many overs the batting or bowling side is down – it is not just the bowling side that wastes time – and next time they bowl take a fielder off for two, three or five overs.

Former England bowler Steven Finn:

A run penalty would be better than a monetary fine. The problem is there are quite a lot of things that aren’t the fault of the bowling team at all – gloves changed too frequently, treatment for minor injuries.

It is more complicated than simply punishing the bowling team and I wouldn’t want the quality of cricket to be diminished by rushing through too much.

BBC cricket presenter and commentator Isa Guha:

Slow over-rates have been a problem for a long time in Test cricket and I feel sorry for the spectators who pay good money and feel like they are missing out on action they have paid for.