Day 1 @ The Oval, England v India, 3rd and Final Test (India leads the series 1-0)

[mcgillianaire]

LUNCH: India 1/117. (Karthik 50*)

Excellent start, excellent session. Karthik notched up his 6th Test fifty (and 3rd of the series), as India won another good toss and chose to bat. Jaffer got things going in the 4th over of the morning, and since then the Indians have scored more than 4 an over. The only English success came at 62, when Vaughan's strategic placement of Pietersen halfway between the inner-circle and boundary at a squarish-third man, enticed Jaffer to play straight into his hands after a brisk 35. (He had earlier hit an upper-cut six in the same area). The captain, Rahul Dravid, walked-in and began in rather brisk fashion himself. At one point he was even scoring more than a run-a-ball, but with lunch just around the corner, he pulled down the shutters and let his partner run the shop. The Oval has played true to its nature in recent times: a belter to bat on, and nothing less than 650 in under two days, will provide enough time for teams with these kinda bowling attacks to push for victory within five. India needs 350 from today's play, and without losing too many more wickets.

TEA: India 3/211. (Karthik 91, Dravid 55)

A disappointing last hour for India, as they lost Dravid and Karthik within the space of a couple overs. Only twenty-six runs were scored in the second hour, as England sensed an opportunity to claw their way back into the game. With SRT and Ganguly at the crease, I'd say it's even stevens. This partnership and the next one could make-or-break India's chances of forcing a win. Off to tea!

STUMPS: India 4/316. (Karthik 91, Dravid 55, SRT 48*)

Despite one unlucky umpiring decision against Karthik, and another shocker against Ganguly; India took the honours on the 1st day at The Oval. Two of the Fab Four are still at the crease. SRT and Laxman, who incidentally became the ninth Indian batsman to cross 5000 Test runs, will be expected to shepherd India into a winning position tomorrow. Today however, began with a flurry of runs and for half the day, the run rate was well above four an over. Then England pegged India back with a coupla wickets, and the runs dried up. SRT in particular gave the impression that he was going to be the last man standing, as he ground his way to 48* in just over three hours. Dravid will be pleased that his boys scored more than 300 runs, without losing too many wickets; but England will not feel too outdone, especially after it looked like they were in for a fruitless and tiring day's effort. Little was mentioned about the weather, which incredibly has produced yet another 24hrs without precipitation in the capital. Given India's seemingly solid position, it might as well not rain for at least another day or two. It also looks like India are more interested in batting long enough to avoid a loss, yet offer themselves just about enough time to theoretically force a result if the bowlers get stuck in. Given how brilliant the umpiring's been this series, we might just have a result, regardless of how well India and/or England play. But for now, dinner calls!

Comments

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

Assume India were X number of runs for 9 wickets down at 87.5 overs at 6:17, and then got all-out on the last ball of the over. Though two minimum overs remain to be bowled during the day, given the fact that 2 overs are taken out of the stipulated 90 at the end of an innings, and the fact that it's already past 6pm, and less than 5 minutes to go after the innings break, chances are the umpires would call it a day and start afresh the next day.
Again, the umpires don't have a choice, unless they make the wrong decision. In the situation you outline, there have been 88 overs bowled. Add two for the change of innings and you get 90. As long as it's passed the scheduled stumps time (6pm), it's stumps.

And it's 4 minutes per over, not 5.

Slow over-rates are, I think, a phenomenon of the last fifty years. If you look at some scorecards from before WWII, you'll often see more than 100 overs being bowled in a day. (Though check to see how many balls were in each over.)

what the rules are in Tests for replacing balls, particularly in terms of whether they are allowed and/or do use previously used balls in the same match/series
If a ball becomes unfit for play, or stops satisfying the regulations somehow, then it gets replaced with a ball of comparable wear. Where these balls come from I don't know - I think they come from balls that were used in innings that ended early in first-class matches in the home country.

The exception to this in Test cricket is that is the ball is more than 110 overs old, and it needs to be replaced, it gets replaced by a new ball.

It is not, as I read things, compulsory to take a new ball at the start of the second innings (you can keep using the one you used in the first innings), but I don't know of any team doing this at international or first-class level.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Looking back at it, I wrote a terrible example. Thanks for the corrections. I know I've been corrected on the 5->4 minutes thing only recently, yet I suppose my old (and as it was wrong) habit wants to die a hard and slow death.

>Slow over-rates are, I think, a phenomenon of the last fifty years.
Indeed. But like you've told me before, I need to check-up and make sure with the number of balls per over. I didn't know till a few years ago for example that some Tests were played with 4 ball overs! But as far as slow over-rates go, I'm with Boycott on this one. Captains (and by extension, their teams) don't care about them much because the penalty is mild. I think teams should work harder at bowling 15 overs an hour, if not, they should be penalized heavily for not doing so. I accept excuses when captains want time to set fields, but there's gotta be a limit. If after I go through all those old scorecards and find decent evidence, I will make a post about it. (*scribbles mental note, one of gazillion other posts to make between now and death*)

>The exception to this in Test cricket
Ah yes.

>not, as I read things, compulsory to take a new ball at the start of the second innings (you can keep using the one you used in the first innings)
This is true. I can't remember an instance this was invoked but I remember hearing about it on the radio commentary. I believe another listener sent an email about it asking if it had ever happened. I'm not sure if Bearders found an answer for it.

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

But like you've told me before, I need to check-up and make sure with the number of balls per over.
I just said that as a general warning to people looking at old scorecards - the over-rates were definitely higher. eg (at random), here, 487 six-ball overs in four days.

I didn't know till a few years ago for example that some Tests were played with 4 ball overs!
Some were played with 5, back in the 1890's.

I'd like to play with eight-ball overs sometime (not that I've played for several years anyway...). It's been less than 30 years since we had them in Australia.