More play is better than less: Cricket needs a dose of common sense

It rains in England in summer. Cricket is played in summer. The two are bound to run into each other. Common sense would suggest that cricket work out a system to reduce the time lost to rain — for what irritates players and spectators alike is a break in the rain when the ground (with good drainage) seems fit for play but such things as lunch and tea are given precedence.

There was a brief stretch on the final day of the Test at Old Trafford when it was announced that play would resume but not before a 40-minute lunch break. Phil Tufnell was speaking for the frustrated when he said on radio, “Let’s skip lunch today, lads. Get yourself a boiled egg and a tomato and let’s get on with it.”

Getting on with it has never been a priority for a sport that takes a break for tea. Starting time of 11 a.m. seems sacrosanct for England. The rule on slow over rates was tweaked mid-series, so there is no reason not to have made a change here too.

At nature’s mercy

This is not unique to England. Post-rain restarts have been unnecessarily delayed in cities from Bengaluru to Auckland. One of the charms of cricket is that beyond being a game of bat and ball, it is also a game where nature plays a role — wickets deteriorate, the grounds are not of standard size, conditions vary, players could run into a storm or an attack by bees. Above all, there is rain.

It is possible that one team prays for rain – as Australia’s Josh Hazelwood admitted he did following England’s dominance over three days at Old Trafford.

The Guardian’s book on the over-by-over coverage of the 2005 Ashes is titled, ‘Is it Cowardly to Pray for Rain?’ Rain, of course, does not take sides, and over a long period things even out, teams missing out in one Test being allowed to squeak through in another.

It is not the rain itself that is the problem, but how the game deals with it. “It doesn’t get dark here in England until 10 p.m. in the summer, so why can’t we just play until we bowl the overs?” asks Joe Root. “At every opportunity you should be looking for ways to get the Test on….” More play is better than less play, but that realisation has not dawned on cricket’s administrators.

Even golf does better. A few kilometres from Old Trafford, where the British Open was being played, it rained heavily on the course (it may have been part of the same thunderstorm), but the tournament carried on. Golfers get on with it. While cricket cannot be played in the rain (imagine facing Mark Wood) for fear of injury, once there is a break in grounds with excellent drainage, there can be little excuse.

Overs-management

If rain-management is one problem, another is the overs-management. To be fined heavily after winning a Test makes little sense, something Usman Khawaja pointed out. The same lack of common sense is apparent here too.

According to one statistician, after the first three days in the fourth Test, 26 overs were lost to slow over rates. When England complain about being robbed, they should remember their lack of urgency while bowling (in contrast to the urgency while batting) might have deprived them of nearly a session.

To deduct points that might affect their final standing in the World Test Championship is harsh; it kept Australia out of the final the first time around. To penalise players who have ensured exciting results seems harsh too. In England, as pointed out by Root, play can carry on.

If 30 overs have to be bowled in each session, perhaps the breaks could be reduced. When a game produces a result, it means that the shortage of overs has not affected the result, and there should be no fine at all.

When the West Indies were at their peak, they bowled at 11 or 12 overs per hour but still finished many games in four days or earlier. It would have been churlish to fine the team then.

Tweaking these things does not require great intellectual effort. Just common sense.