London, July 21:The conversation around slow over-rates in Test cricket continues to stir debate among fans and pundits. But is the outrage entirely justified, or are we missing the broader picture?
During the recent Test at Lord’s, India and England collectively fell short of the scheduled 90 overs on each of the first three days.
Despite the inclusion of the extra half-hour of play, a total of 32 overs were “lost” across three days. Critics were quick to call out teams, officials, and the ICC for shortchanging fans. However, a closer look at how over-rates are calculated might offer some perspective.
Contrary to common perception, over-rates aren’t judged daily or even by innings but are assessed over the entire match. If a team manages to dismiss the opposition within 80 overs, that innings is excluded from the over-rate calculation—unless the pace of play drops significantly below the accepted 15 overs per hour.
The ICC believes that a team bowling out the opposition in under 80 overs is already offering sufficient value to spectators.
Additional allowances are built into the calculations: 18 minutes for nine wickets (excluding the final one), four minutes for each drinks break, and extra time for DRS reviews, injury stoppages, and ball changes.
Once factored in, a day where a team bowls 80 overs in roughly six hours effectively yields an average of 14 overs per hour—a rate more respectable than the raw number of “overs lost” suggests.
Even match referees agree that 90 overs of fast bowling a day is a stretch in modern cricket.
The game has evolved: attacking batting demands frequent field adjustments, and aggressive play is replacing the more docile rhythms of the past. In this climate, officials tend to prioritise quality over quantity.
Some argue that slow over-rates could offer unfair tactical advantages or mask issues with player fitness.
While valid, such concerns are generally more applicable to limited-overs formats.
In Test cricket, match officials are known to consistently apply allowances, even if not always in the public eye.
Nonetheless, over-rate penalties can be punishing. England, despite winning at Lord’s, lost a sixth of their World Test Championship (WTC) points due to a slow rate.
The irony? Both teams had similar over-rates in the first innings, and India improved theirs in the second innings only because their spinners became increasingly effective.
England, short on spin options and carrying an injured spinner, couldn’t match that.
In reality, high-scoring matches or those dominated by pace attacks often result in over-rate penalties.
Teams like Pakistan, England, and New Zealand have all faced this recently. The ICC is aware that fast-bowling-heavy teams are at a disadvantage and may revisit regulations in the next WTC cycle.
Until then, perhaps it’s time to shift focus. Instead of simply counting missing overs, let’s consider the intensity, entertainment, and ever-evolving nature of the longest format. Test cricket is changing—and maybe, just maybe, our expectations should change too.
In the end, obsessing over raw over-counts risks missing the essence of modern Test cricket. The game is faster, fiercer, and more tactically complex than ever before.
While accountability is necessary, so too is empathy—for the players pushing their limits and for a format constantly evolving to stay relevant. Over rates matter, yes, but perhaps not as much as the quality, drama, and sheer theatre that Test cricket continues to deliver.
Ultimately, the debate around over rates should go beyond simple numbers and look at the broader dynamics of the modern game. (Agencies)
