England news June 17, 2014

England fined for Lord's over-rate

ESPNcricinfo staff
16

England have been fined for their slow over-rate during the Lord's Test against Sri Lanka, although were ruled to be just one over behind despite 17 being lost during the match while the visitors have not be sanctioned at all.

Each member of the England team will lose 10% of their match fee while Alastair Cook will be docked double. If England are ruled to be behind their over-rate again within the next 12 months, Cook faces a ban for one Test.

On Saturday, when England were in the field throughout the day, there were six overs unbowled by 6.30 - the cut-off once the extra half an hour is played. Six overs were also lost on the second day when both teams had been in the field, along with four on the fourth and one on the opening day.

Speaking to Sky Sports after the Test had been drawn with Sri Lanka nine down, Cook admitted it was "not ideal" but pointed to the challenges of having a four-pronged pace attack.

Peter Moores, the England coach, said the team had recognised the issue. "We have already started to address that ... we have already quickened up, so that's an area that quite rightly we pay attention to. We will take that into the Headingley Test. We don't want to lose overs at all, because it can be costly.''

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Frill on June 18, 2014, 14:42 GMT

    About time England got punished for their slow over rate.

  • InternationalCricketFollower on June 18, 2014, 12:22 GMT

    I do not understand why Sri Lanka did not get any fine. Does not make sense.

  • 2929paul on June 18, 2014, 9:52 GMT

    It doesn't help when people keep running on and off the field with drinks, gloves and other bits and bobs. On one occasion I noticed a drink came out to a batsman and an over later there was an official drinks break.The umpires need to take more responsibility and stop these unofficial breaks.

  • CliffM on June 18, 2014, 8:26 GMT

    Both teams were woefully short of the required rate and yet one team gets fined the absolute minimum (one over short) and the other nothing at all. It is about time the ICC published what time allowances are given in every game so that we can see their rationale for the calculation. We will then be able to have an informed debate about whether the way it is being done is appropriate.

  • OneEyedAussie on June 18, 2014, 2:35 GMT

    This has been a long time coming.

  • on June 18, 2014, 1:21 GMT

    I can accept England being fined for a slow over rate but with Sri Lanka's 11 overs per hour and playing equal part to the slow over rate its inexcusable that they got away with it

  • Strongscotch on June 18, 2014, 0:21 GMT

    I thought Captain gets banned for a match..is it after the second warning?

  • AndrewBT on June 17, 2014, 20:22 GMT

    Last year in which the worldwide over rate in Tests reached the 'minimum' of 15 per hour was 1979. All teams will continue to bowl well below this under major sanctions are introduced. The fact that England are said to have been only one over behind in current Test is a joke! (I'm an England fan.)

  • Narkovian on June 17, 2014, 17:34 GMT

    Over rates in general are just terrible. They just dawdle about. We pay to watch cricket not see continuous nattering and pontification. Can't remember which side it was but at one stage 11.3 were bowled in an hour. How on earth did players from 50 years ago mange 20+ per hour ? Answer they didn't talk so much. Ban the captain asap for one match. 13 seems to be the norm nowadays... how long before the norm is 10. Oh yes I forgot.. the poor old bowlers are tired out. So Trueman, Statham, Tyson never were ?!!! Come on get on with it. Ho yes.. and while yr at it, ICC, stop this ridiculous substitute for no reason. Injury/illness only is the law.

  • steve48 on June 17, 2014, 16:42 GMT

    We just saw a great test, which perhaps England would have won by bowling the extra overs required, giving us a better go with the second new ball. However, this over rate stuff dominates! We were certainly not slowing the game down on purpose, and batting sides contribute to slow over rates more than anyone seems to realise. My real point is that I doubt any spectators felt short changed, and we were not time wasting, so can commonsense not prevail? No problem with the fines, but should not count as a warning to a ban, given the match circumstances.

  • Frill on June 18, 2014, 14:42 GMT

    About time England got punished for their slow over rate.

  • InternationalCricketFollower on June 18, 2014, 12:22 GMT

    I do not understand why Sri Lanka did not get any fine. Does not make sense.

  • 2929paul on June 18, 2014, 9:52 GMT

    It doesn't help when people keep running on and off the field with drinks, gloves and other bits and bobs. On one occasion I noticed a drink came out to a batsman and an over later there was an official drinks break.The umpires need to take more responsibility and stop these unofficial breaks.

  • CliffM on June 18, 2014, 8:26 GMT

    Both teams were woefully short of the required rate and yet one team gets fined the absolute minimum (one over short) and the other nothing at all. It is about time the ICC published what time allowances are given in every game so that we can see their rationale for the calculation. We will then be able to have an informed debate about whether the way it is being done is appropriate.

  • OneEyedAussie on June 18, 2014, 2:35 GMT

    This has been a long time coming.

  • on June 18, 2014, 1:21 GMT

    I can accept England being fined for a slow over rate but with Sri Lanka's 11 overs per hour and playing equal part to the slow over rate its inexcusable that they got away with it

  • Strongscotch on June 18, 2014, 0:21 GMT

    I thought Captain gets banned for a match..is it after the second warning?

  • AndrewBT on June 17, 2014, 20:22 GMT

    Last year in which the worldwide over rate in Tests reached the 'minimum' of 15 per hour was 1979. All teams will continue to bowl well below this under major sanctions are introduced. The fact that England are said to have been only one over behind in current Test is a joke! (I'm an England fan.)

  • Narkovian on June 17, 2014, 17:34 GMT

    Over rates in general are just terrible. They just dawdle about. We pay to watch cricket not see continuous nattering and pontification. Can't remember which side it was but at one stage 11.3 were bowled in an hour. How on earth did players from 50 years ago mange 20+ per hour ? Answer they didn't talk so much. Ban the captain asap for one match. 13 seems to be the norm nowadays... how long before the norm is 10. Oh yes I forgot.. the poor old bowlers are tired out. So Trueman, Statham, Tyson never were ?!!! Come on get on with it. Ho yes.. and while yr at it, ICC, stop this ridiculous substitute for no reason. Injury/illness only is the law.

  • steve48 on June 17, 2014, 16:42 GMT

    We just saw a great test, which perhaps England would have won by bowling the extra overs required, giving us a better go with the second new ball. However, this over rate stuff dominates! We were certainly not slowing the game down on purpose, and batting sides contribute to slow over rates more than anyone seems to realise. My real point is that I doubt any spectators felt short changed, and we were not time wasting, so can commonsense not prevail? No problem with the fines, but should not count as a warning to a ban, given the match circumstances.

  • CodandChips on June 17, 2014, 16:30 GMT

    Good. It's always a problem for England. Was under Strauss. But why single out this performance when at other times our overrate has been 12 or less an hour. Long overdue in my opinion.

  • KingOwl on June 17, 2014, 16:03 GMT

    It is quite normal when you have only got fast bowlers doing the bowling. It is a choice that England made and they have to live with it. One could argue that they could have gone through the overs quicker. But then, they would have tired more and their performance levels would have fallen. So, this situation is not surprising. I don't think England care much about losing 10% of their fees. If Cook is banned for a test, that could be a blessing in disguise!

  • on June 17, 2014, 15:40 GMT

    Has Cook grasped that the paying customers are being short-changed for England's selection choices? I do not agree with fines, I think they should dock runs for every over lost, at least 5 per over, and why don't the umpires speed them up? This is apart from the distinct possibility that lost overs could have led to a result, in this case in England's favouir. As it is the final overs were exciting but they had the effect of taking attention away from the top order's lack of form, perhaps Jordan could open, his recent scores point to this.

  • buncers on June 17, 2014, 15:29 GMT

    England and Cook should have also have been disciplined and fined for their behaviour in the last ODI regarding the mankading issue.

  • wrenx on June 17, 2014, 13:07 GMT

    Excellent to see this. Go through sample logic. Wonder why Sri Lanka got away with it though

  • LeonardH on June 17, 2014, 13:03 GMT

    When asked for his opinion on how the deliberately slow England over rate affected the Spirit of Cricket, Angelo Matthews had this to say: "I think you're going to have to ask Alastair why he did it. I'm obviously disappointed with it," When asked if it was something he would do, Matthews added: "I hope not, you don't know quite in the spur of the moment about it but you know emotion can get the better of you. Until you are put in a situation like that you don't know how you would handle it."

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • LeonardH on June 17, 2014, 13:03 GMT

    When asked for his opinion on how the deliberately slow England over rate affected the Spirit of Cricket, Angelo Matthews had this to say: "I think you're going to have to ask Alastair why he did it. I'm obviously disappointed with it," When asked if it was something he would do, Matthews added: "I hope not, you don't know quite in the spur of the moment about it but you know emotion can get the better of you. Until you are put in a situation like that you don't know how you would handle it."

  • wrenx on June 17, 2014, 13:07 GMT

    Excellent to see this. Go through sample logic. Wonder why Sri Lanka got away with it though

  • buncers on June 17, 2014, 15:29 GMT

    England and Cook should have also have been disciplined and fined for their behaviour in the last ODI regarding the mankading issue.

  • on June 17, 2014, 15:40 GMT

    Has Cook grasped that the paying customers are being short-changed for England's selection choices? I do not agree with fines, I think they should dock runs for every over lost, at least 5 per over, and why don't the umpires speed them up? This is apart from the distinct possibility that lost overs could have led to a result, in this case in England's favouir. As it is the final overs were exciting but they had the effect of taking attention away from the top order's lack of form, perhaps Jordan could open, his recent scores point to this.

  • KingOwl on June 17, 2014, 16:03 GMT

    It is quite normal when you have only got fast bowlers doing the bowling. It is a choice that England made and they have to live with it. One could argue that they could have gone through the overs quicker. But then, they would have tired more and their performance levels would have fallen. So, this situation is not surprising. I don't think England care much about losing 10% of their fees. If Cook is banned for a test, that could be a blessing in disguise!

  • CodandChips on June 17, 2014, 16:30 GMT

    Good. It's always a problem for England. Was under Strauss. But why single out this performance when at other times our overrate has been 12 or less an hour. Long overdue in my opinion.

  • steve48 on June 17, 2014, 16:42 GMT

    We just saw a great test, which perhaps England would have won by bowling the extra overs required, giving us a better go with the second new ball. However, this over rate stuff dominates! We were certainly not slowing the game down on purpose, and batting sides contribute to slow over rates more than anyone seems to realise. My real point is that I doubt any spectators felt short changed, and we were not time wasting, so can commonsense not prevail? No problem with the fines, but should not count as a warning to a ban, given the match circumstances.

  • Narkovian on June 17, 2014, 17:34 GMT

    Over rates in general are just terrible. They just dawdle about. We pay to watch cricket not see continuous nattering and pontification. Can't remember which side it was but at one stage 11.3 were bowled in an hour. How on earth did players from 50 years ago mange 20+ per hour ? Answer they didn't talk so much. Ban the captain asap for one match. 13 seems to be the norm nowadays... how long before the norm is 10. Oh yes I forgot.. the poor old bowlers are tired out. So Trueman, Statham, Tyson never were ?!!! Come on get on with it. Ho yes.. and while yr at it, ICC, stop this ridiculous substitute for no reason. Injury/illness only is the law.

  • AndrewBT on June 17, 2014, 20:22 GMT

    Last year in which the worldwide over rate in Tests reached the 'minimum' of 15 per hour was 1979. All teams will continue to bowl well below this under major sanctions are introduced. The fact that England are said to have been only one over behind in current Test is a joke! (I'm an England fan.)

  • Strongscotch on June 18, 2014, 0:21 GMT

    I thought Captain gets banned for a match..is it after the second warning?