How long is a test match?

[chickenfeet]

I had a sneaking feeling that test matches have been getting shorter due, largely, to ever slowing over rates. Here are some stats from a sample of Ashes series in England. (All figures rounded to the nearest integer)

2005 - 5 tests - 1520 overs - 304 overs/match - 61 overs/day
1981 - 6 tests - 2117 overs - 353 overs/match - 71 overs/day
1956 - 5 tests - 1739 overs - 348 overs/match - 70 overs/day
1938 - 3 tests - 1163 overs - 388 overs/match* - 97 overs/day

In 1938 four tests were scheduled but Old Trafford was abandoned without a ball being bowled and is excluded from the stats. The 1938 series was of four day games, all the rest are five days.

I was surprised that 1956 wasn't higher but on closer analysis there were a lot of low scoring games which given the bowling talent on display is perhaps understandable. Scoring rates were also very low.

All the above figures of course include time off for rain and bad light but as we know, even allowing for that, at most points in this year's series the teams have bowled around 13 overs/hour. For fun, let's look at the the first test in 1938 (Trent Bridge 10-14 June) because this was not rain affected.

Salient facts:

• 503 overs were bowled - 126 per day (remember 6 hour days with no time added on)
  
• 1496 runs were scored at just under 3 per over but England scored theirs at 3.5 over racking up 422/4 on the first day. Not unnaturally, the Australians were much slower in their second innings when, following on, they were batting to save the match.
  
• Verity bowled 62 overs between tea on the 3rd day and the close on the 4th. Remember CMJ wibbling yesterday about how tired Warne must be after 35 overs?
  
• There were seven centuries scored versus eight in the whole 2005 series. Two of them were double hundreds of which none in 2005

Looking at the sides I'd say that if one could pick an eleven for each country from the players on show at Nottingham in 1938 and The Oval in 2005, only Flintoff, Harmison and, perhaps, Trescothick for England and Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath for the Australians would likely make the cut though there is definitely room for debate about the Australian middle order and the English seam attack.

Comments

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

No one disputes that the over-rates have dropped to an appalling level, but things aren't quite as bad as you suggest; you've done the sums as if there were 25 full days of Ashes cricket this year whereas, even forgetting the interruptions from weather, three matches finished on the fourth day, and of those Lord's saw only 50 minutes' play on the fourth, and Edgbaston 100 minutes - so call that 20 and a half before deducting all the time lost, which must have come to two or three days more. I could do the sums from Bill Frindall's cards in The Times, but it would take time.

As a quick option, I'll give you over-rates for each hour at Old Trafford, as I scored that one (the totals come in under the total for the complete innings because I didn't work out a figure for incomplete hours):
First England innings, Aussies bowling: 13, 12, 13, 16, 15, 14, 13, 13.
First Australian innings, England bowling: 12.3, 12, 13, 12.3, 14, 13.
Second England innings: 13, 12.4, 14.2, 12.
Second Australian innings: 15, 14, 14, 13, 15, 11.3, 14.

So they very rarely touched the 15 per hour they're supposed to do (that 16 per hour involved Warne and Katich, and the unexpectedly speedy start to Australia's last innings was because Giles and Vaughan bowled when England were desperate to have a go at the batting despite bad light), but they never dropped to the ten you suggest.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I wasn't suggesting my overs per day numbers could be converted to overs/hour. I do think they are comparable with previous series though. Those series also had rain, games that finished early etc.

Your figures average to just under 14 per hour which isn't far off my "around 13 overs/hour".

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

To try and quantify time lost is difficult but I suspect more time was lost in 1956 than 2005.

Trent Bridge: around half of day 1 and all of day 2
Lords: Some time lost but I can't figure out how much
Leeds: At least one full day lost
Old Trafford: Only 6 runs were scored on day 3
Oval: A full day lost

It's virtually impossible to quantify shorter stoppages given the data sources I have but there must have been some.

It seems reasonable to suppose that more time was lost to rain in an era when wickets were not covered.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Hey, John Denham's on Radio 4!

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I got to it it just in time to hear "John Denham, thankyou very much".

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Sorry. He was talking about the aftermath of the London bombings and the government's response, in his capacity as chairman of the select committee on home affairs.

[blonde222.livejournal.com]

I have one word for you: NARG

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Well there were more of them in 1938 too; remarkably, even Australian ones.

[atpotch.livejournal.com]

Of course there were also infinitely more triple centuries in 1938- though you could argue that Hutton's grinding 364, world record though it was, and England's 903-7d, only recently surpassed, was somewhat less enthralling. To an extent one has to balance the pros and cons of slightly less great entertainment with slightly more very good entertainment.

TCH