Free Hits In Tests A Miss?

The ICC are considering some radical changes to shake up test cricket. Well, some reports have used the word “radical” but really they’re just tinkering around the edges.

The truth is that test cricket doesn’t need any radical changes because it’s already the best game in the world by a distance. The proposed changes are therefore just ideas which won’t really affect the game too much. It’s not like that daft plan to introduce 4-day tests. You know, that crap idea traditionalists like me want to shove up Colin Graves’ arse.

So what are the proposals?

A) To speed up over rates by introducing penalties for teams that take longer than 45 seconds to change ends.

B) To use the same type of ball around the world in the upcoming test championship.

C) To make every ball after a no ball a “free hit” like they do in ODIs.

What do you make of these ideas? I’m in two minds. I don’t really see the harm in them. But I don’t exactly see the point either. Let’s look at them one by one.

Introducing penalties for slow play isn’t a bad idea. Most sports do it. Even golf. What’s controversial is the idea of having a clock (presumably a visible one spectators can see) counting down from 45 seconds. Is this really necessary?

This idea has been compared to snooker’s ‘shot clock’. It’s a somewhat Americanised concept that might be appropriate in some tournaments but would surely never be used at The Crucible. So why should it be used at Lord’s during an Ashes test?

I imagine Graves and Harrison see this as a great way to enhance the entertainment. Perhaps the tannoy could play the music from Countdown as Joe Root and Co scurry feverishly into position, followed by an audible “whamp, whamp, whaaaaamp” if the clock reaches zero and the bowler isn’t already at the top of his mark. This idea would surely appeal to mums and kids. Ahem.

Back in the real world, however, although there’s clear need to speed up over rates, I’m not sure a shot clock is the way to do it. It doesn’t really fit with the atmosphere of test cricket. Nor do I think it’s particularly practical or fair: the first time a team takes too much time they’ll be given a warning. Subsequently they’ll be penalised five runs. That’s the same penalty as ball tampering!

What happens, for example, if a batsman is going berserk and there really is a genuine needs for a captain to tinker with the field longer than usual? What’s more, sometimes slowing down the action can actually add to the drama. It makes every ball more of an event.

Consequently, I think there are probably better ways to speed up the game. For example, just encourage the umpires to penalise slow play. This way they can use their judgement when the fielding captain is taking the piss.

The second idea – using the same ball around the world – just seems like common sense to me. The only caveat I’d add is that it must not, on pain of death to all ICC committee members, be the cursed Kookaburra ball.

I’m not sure what other countries would make of using the Duke exclusively, but I’m sure they can find a ball with a relatively pronounced seam that stays hard for a reasonably long time, swings a bit, and gives the bowler a chance. The bleedin’ Kookaburra often results in dull as dishwater contests.

Overall, however, I think using the same ball throughout a competition is logical. If the rules are the same for every team then why shouldn’t the ball? Having said that, however, I don’t have a problem with variety either. Once again I don’t see this issue as a particularly big deal.

Finally – and I expect this one is going to raise the most eyebrows – let’s consider the ‘free hit’ idea. Does this sort of gimmick have a place in test cricket?

First I have a confession to make. I’ve often advocated (in private conversations of course) that they should have free hits in red ball cricket. I’ve been doing it for years. Why? It’s partly to wind up traditionalist mates by making a somewhat mischievous / facetious suggestion, and partly because I dislike it when bowers bowl no balls. It’s annoying.

Therefore I quite like the idea of punishing bowlers who overstep. What’s more, I’m a batsman myself, so the more opportunities I get to swing the bat in a carefree way in a consequence-free scenario the better.

What’s more, I do think adding free hits to test cricket would be entertaining. Imagine Alastair Cook batting in his bubble for hours. When the bowler bowls a no ball he suddenly has to switch gears (not to mention mindset) and try to hit the bowler for six – something he’s not particularly adept at. The results might be mildly amusing

The same might apply to Jimmy Anderson aka The Burnley Lara. It would be quite amusing if, in the middle of being peppered by Dale Steyn, he suddenly gets the opportunity to retaliate and do Steyn’s figures some damage.

The problem, of course, is that rules like ‘free hits’ don’t really sit comfortably in the test format. It would be an uncomfortable marriage and they’d seem out of place – a random invasion of white ball protocol into a red ball occasion.

What’s more – and I keep coming back to this with all the ICC’s suggestions above – what’s the bloody point? Would it really change the game enough to make it worth doing?

Overall, although all these suggestions have some merit, and they’re probably coming from a good place, I sense they’re all a bit “meh”. Is there really much point in introducing them?

As I said at the top of this article, test cricket is clearly the best game in the world. Does it need gimmicks? The authorities would be much better off simply promoting good wickets i.e. surfaces that create a fair contest between bat and ball, and then letting test cricket’s magnificence speak for itself.

What do you all think?

James Morgan

27 comments

  • Clueless and out of touch yet again…

    They would be better served punishing any team not bowling 90 overs in a day (excluding light/rain breaks), punishing sledging and clearing up the game from overly aggressive verbals

    • Sledging and over aggressive verbals are being punished, especially with the use of on field microphones. We now live in a world where you can be punished by outside authorities for racial or sexual abuse. The Windies series saw a bowler penalised for homophobic comments to Root. In the ‘heyday’ of test cricket post war this would have been laughable. Can you imagine Keith Miller or Fred Trueman as ‘politically correct ?’ The Warners of this world are a dying breed. You get much more abusive verbals in club cricket.

      • And it’s in club cricket that it also needs eradicating. Begins with cleaning up pro level so people see it is NOt acceptable

        • It depends how thick a skin you have. A few decades ago people didn’t take everything so seriously. It was just laughed off as the attempt to get the rise it was intended to. Nowadays people seem so easily offendedand and don’t seem to able to turn the tables on this kind of incitement like they used to, with their own piss taking. It’s just a contest. Thin skins are dangerous and should not be encouraged. Stop taking things so personally and recognise them for what they are. In this day and age of techno sociability, where reading between the lines and body language have become a lost art, people are so naive that they misinterpret. Should we be encouraging this or getting to grips with the reality that most of this is just a ruse to put people off. Gamesmanship if you like, but rarely more than that.

          • Ex mil fella.. seen and done things that most wont ever see. It’s got bugger all to do with thin skin. It’s amateur cricket and being sledged or abused shouldn’t be tolerated. You wouldn’t do it to anyone you meet so why in sport. It’s juet an excuse for people to be aggressive and abusive in a way they can’t in their lives.

            It adds nothing to the game so should be eradicated

            • Slagging people off is part of the British way of life. Dressing room, workplace or pub, it’s been a part of every day life as long as I can remember, especially amongst blokes and it has everything to do with thin skin. You can’t legislate and ban what is so entrenched, you have to educate, a gradual process.
              My lad is an ex army rigger and has moved to the states to work, along with a couple of his UK colleagues. The locals find it difficult to cope with their British concept of mates, where the more you take the piss the closer you are. It might not be to everyone’s taste, but it’s part of our ‘cultural heritage’ here.
              We live in a society regressing into banning everything we don’t agree with, rather than trying a degree of tolerance necessary with education. Banning stuff just rubs people up the wrong way and often entrenches views further.
              I have never come accross any walk of life where merely increasing legislation makes for a long term solution.

              • Umm, what part of the oppos are my mates ?? I don’t disagree about banter with mates but the oppos are never and will never be mates .

                They’ve tried to educate people and it hasn’t worked so yes, bans are the only way now

                How do you keep discipline..it’s not by being all soft and nice.. it’s by having punishments .. that way people stay in line

          • It’s exactly because of “recognising [comments] for what they are” that they should be punished!

            As Ccc says, we’re not talking about banter between mates–and the comments which fall into this category (I’m thinking of the story Ed Smith told about Flintoff making fun of him for being posh, or about Tim Paine’s comments to Risabh Pant) are neither offensive nor punished.

            However, a lot of current sledging falls into two other categories.

            One is simply abuse. Telling someone, with a face full of aggression, to fuck off or that they’re a useless cunt is not banter, however much some people might like to pretend that it is. As Ccc also implies, if you did this at work you’d get a talking to–and you probably would have several decades ago too, when such language was less acceptable at work.

            The other is marginalising, racist or homophobic comments. Again these are quite simply not banter, however much the cowards making them try to pretend that they are: they’re hate, disrespect or derision dishonestly dressed up as a joke. That’s “what they are”. Here, it’s not skins that are thin, but the end of the wedge! The thick end of that wedge is death–literally. That’s what we’ve seen this weekend in Christchurch and that’s what we see in the distressingly frequent attacks on and murders of gay men.

            These kind of comments shouldn’t be tolerated on a sports field any more than anywhere else, and I’m quite happy to see bans handed out for them if necessary.

            I agree that the best way to deal with this in the long run is by education, but while that takes effect it should be made clear that they’re unacceptable–by punishing players if necessary.

            • I repeat. Merely introducing legistlation to ban stuff doesn’t present a solution, it just entrenches views. Look at the furore over Trump’s visit to these shores. ‘Ban him’ was the moronic cry. Just because he’s a bit of a twat is no reason to ban him. There’s no black and white here, as there’s isn’t with sledging. If the players, who are the recipients of it, not us, can cope what’s the problem? It’s rarely personal, just an attempt to undermine concentration and so put you off. Fast bowlers particularly have always insulted and ridiculed batsmen, as have the wicket keepers and slip cordons.
              If you are engaging in racist of homophobic comments there are plenty of channels to report the incidents to, you don’t need more legistlation.

              • Just a short comment addressed to Mr ‘Cricket cricket cricket’ about ‘oppo’s never being mates. This is palpable claptrap as I have played, as have many others, amateur and professional, against mates in other teams and you play hardball on the field but leave it there. Rugby is renowned for this.
                Think about what happened 100 years ago in the trenches when the British and German soldiers came together for Christmas as mates for a day, sharing their common experiences and then went back to killing each other the next day. No questions were asked, it was just a spot of R&R.
                My lad did tours in Iraq and Afghanistan where ‘hearts and minds’ was the order of the day. The ‘Rag Head’ attitude wasn’t encouraged. He made a couple of pen friends with prisoners out there whom he still keeps in touch with. They were just obeying orders like him. They saw it as protecting their country from a foreign invader they’d never asked for.
                Also who is this ‘they’ who’ve tried and failed to educate. We’ve had a lot of politically correct legistlation in recent years but has this touched the problem. Certainly not on the football terraces.
                How do you keep discipline? Respect. Think back to schooldays, did the cane reduce anti social behaviour? Did young teachers trying to be matey reduce it? We all remember teachers who seemed to have a natural air of authority and it wasn’t through fear or the deterrent factor. Or course you have to have rules and regulations, but only as guidelines, otherwise you produce a nation of non-thinking automatons. Micro management, the nanny state, call it what you like, it’s always a failed enterprise.

              • Enjoy putting people off playing. Sledging is something putting people off but hey.l you know best as always

                Again, you’re keen to keep saying the oppos are mates .. no they aren’t. Sure the odd one is but most aren’t so why should you have to put up with being abused ??

                You wouldn’t do it at work so whynis it suddenly acceptable in amateur, meaningless sport ? It’s suposed to be a hobby that’s fun.. anywya, sledging is putting oeoooe off so needs to be tackled., a few loud mouths lost isn’t a bad thing to lose

  • Of you want to speed it up just make them stay out their until they bowl 90 overs. They’ll soon hurry up. Free hits is one day nonsense. Same ball yes. I think for a change that is a good idea!

  • A penalty of 5 runs per over short would probably work (you can calculate the “expected number of overs” fairly easily) to reduce the slow over rate problem.

    I quite like the idea of free hits in tests. Bowlers simply shouldn’t bowl no balls: I’m with Michael Holding on this: “You see the line. it does not move. Put your foot on it.” However, I’m not convinced the umpires are very good at calling them. We don’t need more technology slowing the game down.

    I’d like to see the Dukes ball adopted worldwide for tests (and ODI’s, actually, though there’s little chance!). ODI bowlers are too much like cannon fodder at the moment.

  • I thought that we all wanted quality rather than quantity??? Don’t we all want to see a fast bowler giving it 100%? He’s going to overstep very occasionally isn’t he? The no ball law already calls for an umpire to call it immediately which, in theory,already gives the batsman a ‘free hit’. If all these ‘new ideas’ are coming from the star studded ‘World Cricket Committee’ then I would suggest that they spend their extremely expensive time advising all the national cricket bosses like the ECB, how to save the decline in grass roots cricket by spending a much more fair proportion of their billions on schools cricket and cricket masters, rather than filling their deep pockets and flying around the world in first class!

  • Anything that the average punter sees aa a sport giving better value for money, penalising gamesmanship and negativity has to be a good thing for that particular sport. I don’t see any harm is any of the suggestions. The moribund argument that test cricket needs no tinkering implies it’s pretty well perfect, which is nonsense, as no balls are infuriating for all spectators, delay any referred decisions and above all are totally Unnecessary, as trying to gain a few inches in immaterial. So if it helps irradicate the ‘disease’ good on it. Slow play is also a modern day anathema to value for money, a key issue in today’s competitive entertainment industry. There’s is no reason why any team should be bowling less than 15 overs an hour. The ridiculous 12 and hour produced by the 70’s Windies should have been addressed permanently then.

  • And this shot clock does what to penalise third innings attempts to bat out for the draw? Exactly nothing. Or 4th innings, when the target is nominal. So bring on the gloves, bring on the bats, bring on the pads, bring on whatever you like. Since it won’t make one jot of difference in such circumstances. If such antics were simply outright banned, or an over added for each and every replacement bat / gloves / whatnot after the first, let’s just see how quickly such time wasting removed from the game (and yes, the ICC does squat about batsmen wasting time).

    Also, will fielding teams from the colder climes be that quick to bowl after 5+ hours in 35+ degrees heat with 90 per cent humidity? Or the 5 degrees May Test that teams like the West Indies might be subjected to?

    Never mind all the audience induced delays (sightscreen), or otherwise unpleasant audience behaviour. But also the more innocent behaviours, such as fielders engaging with the audience at the end of an over.

    And why not the Kookaburra ball? Because England can’t bowl well with it? But seriously, why should some teams gain the advantage of having ‘their’ ball used in series where currently the home team uses another ball? Standardisation of the ball will play in the hands of teams that are already used to playing with the ball in question. So such a proposal is not fair, and simply gives the advantage to the “winning ball teams” for a number of years. The only fair solution in this respect is to come up with an entirely new ball. Good luck with that..

    As for no-ball free hits, ludicrous. Even in ODIs and T20s they are overused. I’d argue it would be better to only allow for free hits in cases of beamers in those versions of the game, and in all other cases simply an extra ball to be bowled.

    Most no balls do not even get called by the umpires as it is. And it becomes even more galling when the umpire makes a WRONG no ball call. It happens. But even if the calling was 100% accurate, it is still a terrible idea.

  • There is a serious problem with slow play. I can’t remember where I read it but apparently over rates in the last year were the worst in the time the ICC have collected records (only 11 years which seems weird). The current system doesn’t work and I’d be willing to try almost anything. The trouble is I suspect that those who really matter like long gaps between overs and even individual deliveries because they can cram adverts in.

  • The only positive things that the ECB could do for test cricket is to take the money they are wasting on The Hundred and use it for marketing and publicising test cricket.

  • On Tuesday I was at the NSW v Victoria Shield match. Late in the day the incumbent premier club, Sydney, commenced practice in the adjacent nets. Without exception the fast bowlers overstepped, sometimes by a metre. No one cared. It was the bane of my coaching life decades ago and nothing has changed. I’m with Michael Holding. What’s more, apart from supporting the free hit, I’d penalise the bowler 5 runs, just like when the ball hits a parked helmet.
    And as for faster over rated, yes, bring on the shot clock.

  • I suppose the people who think up this rubbish have to justify their inflated salaries and unnecessary jobs. Stop bloody tickering with everything, it’s a waste of time.

  • For slow over rates the umpires need to be instructed to give the captain a hurry up. Since they’ve lost so much of their discretion they’ve become supine. Using a Duke ball or similar across the board seems a sensible suggestion. Free hits?? Well maybe but only if they can use a joker to double their runs. And the bowler has to put on a pair of clowns shoes first. … where is all this rubbish coming from, seems like the 100 is infectious.

  • It is ludicrous to think about introducing more gimmicks into a game that is overloaded with Laws and playing conditions.
    Shot clock? Bollocks. The only clock that should matter is the one on the pavilion. 90 overs should not be an impossible target
    to cram into the official playing time. The umpires must take back the power that they seem to be allowing to slip away. Let’s do away with the bloody stupid drinks breaks and require any referrals to be dealt with very quickly instead of being dragged out for endless minutes as seems to be the case at times. Free hits? Give me strength.
    Balls? (That’s a question, not a comment.) Why not go the whole hog and insist that pitches be the same the world over?

    The best comment on here is the first one, from Chris, suggesting a 10 year moratorium on changes in Test cricket. I’ll go along with that.

  • I agree with the correspondent who suggested that “beamers” should result in a free hit. However, I’m going to be controversial and suggest that the no ball law should be changed. Instead of the popping crease belonging “to the umpire” it should belong to the bowler! The width of the popping crease is just a few millimetres and can make no real difference to any batsmen facing the ball. However, if the bowler oversteps beyond the popping crease it is far easier to spot live for an umpire and we’ll be spared the time it takes to judge whether the bowler is a millimetre the right side of the line. It would be easier for umpires to see and call and maybe give the batsman a chance to “have a go” without the need for a “free hit” at Test match level. Even more controversially, I would extend this to batsmen on stumping decisions. Again it would save time on reviews.

    There are so many reasons for a delay on the field so I don’t agree with the clock method. Nor should the on field umpires be responsible for judging time delays. This should be left to the 3rd umpire who could communicate to the on field umpires a warning to the players to hurry up or face a sanction, runs or other penalties.

  • I bet the majority of test batsmen would just totally ignore any free hit. Why risk breaking your rhythm and your concentration?

    I really wish people would stop banging on about over rates, its a massive red herring. Its not like every test is a ending as a draw because we’re not getting the requisite overs in, is it? A test that takes 350 overs from start to finish when the players go at 14 overs per hour will still take 350 overs to complete when the players go at 16 overs per hour. Nothing is ACTUALLY being lost here.

    As for the live spectators, they clearly don’t give a monkeys. Half of them turn up late, leave early, miss the 1st ten overs after lunch because they’re still in the bar. A test match is a really long day, if it finishes after 85 overs that’s a blessed relief.

  • Over rates. Simple – either play on until 34 overs have been bowled in a session (ie 102 in a day – perfectly achievable and reasonable) or the nuclear option of a 36 run penalty for each unbowled over. Captains will make sure that neither will be necessary.

  • I don’t see the point of Free hits at all. The bowler was already penalized, being robbed off any wicket he has taken with that ball, and also an additional run to the opposition. There is no need for further penalty, either in Tests or Limited Overs games.

    The main reason I hate the damned free hit is because I don’t like there being a ball ever in Cricket where the bowler knows he can’t get a wicket and the batsman knows he can’t get out. That is just ridiculous.

FOLLOW US ON TWITTER

copywriter copywriting