Join the International Jihad on Slow Over Rates (Or IJSOR for short.)

You are the cricket public.

You are the reason the game gets money, you are the reason the game is on TV, you are the reason players drive nice cars

You are the game.

Don’t even doubt that.

This game is each and every one of us,

So why do we get bent over?

Why are you constantly short changed?

Why, day after day, do international teams not complete their overs?

4 West Indian quicks used to be able to do it.

But teams with spinners can’t do it.

This is horse shit.

It’s not good enough.

These captains, and their captaincy by numbers, should be able to get through at least, at the very least, 90 overs in the day, regardless of how many wickets are taken.

They shouldn’t need an extra half an hour, and there should be no excuses.

Slow over rates are a blight on our cricket, we want to see cricket, not captains running up to chat to bowlers 4 times an over.

This must stop, we the international cricket fan community deserve better.

Let us strike down the evil doers, and show the powers that be that we care, and this disgrace shall stop right now.

Join in our Jihad, your game needs it.

Click here and put your name down.

This is a joint production with Sportsfreak.

Advertisements
Tagged

0 thoughts on “Join the International Jihad on Slow Over Rates (Or IJSOR for short.)

  1. Stu says:

    More bowler friendly conditinos. You’ll find the West Indies of the 80’s, on the subcontinent didn’t bowl that many overs per day. They were in trouble on this issue even in Australia.I saw Viv Richards speak in about 1986. He addressed this exact controversy. His point though was well made, “…if we bowled our overs any faster, we’d beat you in two days instead of three!…mon”I think we should have conditions that make 7 for 320 at the end of the day a good day for the batting side that won the toss, not 2 for 700!

  2. David Barry says:

    Yeah, sort of echoing what Stu said – the four West Indian quicks used to provide some of the slowest over-rates in history. They started to slow down to below 15/over around 1975 or 1976, with the nadir being the 1980’s, when they were often under 12.But of course in general I agree, over-rates are appalling. They can get through 96 overs a day in domestic cricket.

  3. Straight Point says:

    i don’t liked this jihad at all…how i would get the time to ask every player how they are feeling after each delivery…?where i would get time to engage in long intellectual discussion with umpires over the state of match/affairs…and what bout part time bowlers? wont they feel neglected…? come on think for them too…-signedricky ponting

  4. mr popodopolous says:

    Yes.I remember an ODI at Bristol last year vs India. Collingwood and his slow over rates made me hungry because it delayed dinner for me by 40 minutes!

  5. Jrod says:

    Stu & DB, true that they had trouble in the 80's, but they did manage it in the 70's, it is possible to have 4 quicks and bowl 90 overs. Sp, nice. Mpop, horrible.

  6. PunterROCKS! says:

    I though Punter would be your poster child after sacrificing a test/series/trophy on making sure his over rate was ok.Poor bastard can’t win.

  7. batting in nedkelly's helmet says:

    I played my first game of the season last Saturday. I’m new to town so haven’t played that comp before. I was shocked to discover that in order to get the overs in they bowl five overs from one end before switching. The theory is it cuts out the shuffle after every over, thus saving time. I hated it. I found it very hard to take the cricket seriously, and I thought the loss of the subtlety of a bowler coming to terms with their end (the slope, the breeze etc) was too much of a sacrifice.I was thinking though, if you want to ‘save’ the time spent between overs why not go back to eight-ball overs? Assuming it takes around a minute to switch ends that saves about half hour right there. Also a competent captain would need to speak to his players less often, because there’s the bowler, there’s the batsman, there’s the field, the plan is obvious, see you in eight balls!Of course in Ponting’s case it just means he’d have to run the length of the pitch to talk to the bowler seven times instead of five.

  8. batting in nedkelly's helmet says:

    I played my first game of the season last Saturday. I’m new to town so haven’t played that comp before. I was shocked to discover that in order to get the overs in they bowl five overs from one end before switching. The theory is it cuts out the shuffle after every over, thus saving time. I hated it. I found it very hard to take the cricket seriously, and I thought the loss of the subtlety of a bowler coming to terms with their end (the slope, the breeze etc) was too much of a sacrifice.I was thinking though, if you want to ‘save’ the time spent between overs why not go back to eight-ball overs? Assuming it takes around a minute to switch ends that saves about half hour right there. Also a competent captain would need to speak to his players less often, because there’s the bowler, there’s the batsman, there’s the field, the plan is obvious, see you in eight balls!Of course in Ponting’s case it just means he’d have to run the length of the pitch to talk to the bowler seven times instead of five.

  9. batting in nedkelly's helmet says:

    I played my first game of the season last Saturday. I’m new to town so haven’t played that comp before. I was shocked to discover that in order to get the overs in they bowl five overs from one end before switching. The theory is it cuts out the shuffle after every over, thus saving time. I hated it. I found it very hard to take the cricket seriously, and I thought the loss of the subtlety of a bowler coming to terms with their end (the slope, the breeze etc) was too much of a sacrifice.I was thinking though, if you want to ‘save’ the time spent between overs why not go back to eight-ball overs? Assuming it takes around a minute to switch ends that saves about half hour right there. Also a competent captain would need to speak to his players less often, because there’s the bowler, there’s the batsman, there’s the field, the plan is obvious, see you in eight balls!Of course in Ponting’s case it just means he’d have to run the length of the pitch to talk to the bowler seven times instead of five.

  10. Leg Break says:

    I was shocked to discover that in order to get the overs in they bowl five overs from one end before switching.I coach a team and we play similar rules.It’s a team of 8 year olds though

  11. Damith S. says:

    i played with that rule too. when the wicket was painted on a wall and there was no ‘other end’ and i was in grade 10.jrod, someone i forwarded the petition to told me that the word jihad might alienate some people and not look at this kindly. i understand the word play but some radical ‘youths’ might not take this on with the intention its written. you know like obama for instance.

  12. Jrod says:

    punterrocks, he’ll be my best friend if he actually bowls good over rates with his “real” bowlers. Ned, that is insane.

  13. Jrod says:

    D, yeah, but i dont care.

  14. Damith S. says:

    uj> naturally :)