December 4, 2024 • 10 mins
Black Caps bowling coach Jacob Oram is questioning the logic behind the ICC's sanctioning of the New Zealand and England cricket teams for their slow over rate in the opening test in Christchurch.
Both teams have been fined 15 per cent of their match fee and docked three World Test Championship points, which further dampens the Black Caps' odds of making the final.
Oram explains why it doesn't make sense.
Former ICC Chairman Greg Barclay talks through the reasons behind the sanctions with D'Arcy Waldegrave.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Sports Talk podcast with Dancy Wildergrave
from News TALKS'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
It's eleven minutes after seven. This is sports Talk on
News Talks the B. Greg Barkley to join. It's now
former chairman of the International Cricket Council to talk us
through the decision made by the ICC to not only
find the Englishman and the New Zealanders for slow overrates
in that first Test, but also to dock them championship points.
(00:36):
That's three points each. Engle don't care because they've transgressed
so many times. It doesn't matter. I'm amazed they're still
on positive points quite frankly, doesn't matter to New Zealand.
Well it kind of does. They had a very slender
chance of getting through to that World Test Championship final
and that's got Well there's still a chance. There's still
a chance. It's minimal, but there is still a chance.
(00:57):
So the question is why do you put a fine
out like that? Are you actually punishing the fans? Are
you punishing the players? Is it entire necessary when it's
been pointed out by so many people the game first,
the day and a half early anyway, Why so niggly
over time to answer that, we hope in a whole
lot more. Gregor at Barkley, the former chair it joins
(01:19):
us Now Greg, welcome to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Hi Dathie, how are you good?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Good?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
What?
Speaker 2 (01:23):
You've only been out of the job a few days
and already the media are on your case. It doesn't stop,
does it. The issue around at the moment, of course,
is the slow overrate, something that you'd suggest has been
dogging International Cricket will Test Cricket for some time now
in your former position, the attitude that's been taken, the
(01:43):
rules that have been put in place, Why what are
you trying to achieve? What was the ICC trying to
achieve by putting these restrictions and penalties in.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
First of all, it is just about the fans and
making sure that they get what they're paid for, which
is a certain amount of cricket every day. So it
was it was all designed to ensure that you know,
there was a minimum standard and a minimum amount of
cricket was delivered through the course of a day, and
it was deemed at the time and I think that
most teams are able to comply that that was a
(02:13):
fair number of overs to expect any team in test
cricket to get through. There's a second consideration as well
as the fans and fan expectations, there's a commercial consideration
overlay because a number of broadcasters will actually, as part
of their contracts, take the time in between overs to
(02:34):
sell advertising. So of course, if they've paid an amount
for broadcasts and broadcast rights and they're getting eighty overs
in a day not ninety, that's ten to five whatever
slots that they don't have available to them in terms
of advertising returns. So there is a commercial consideration out
of this as well, which potentially puts boards at odds
with their broadcast or their media rights agreements. Primarily it
(02:57):
is about setting a mimum standard to ensure that a
certain amount of cricket has actually played each day.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
To would agree though with teams like news Ill Anni England.
The most recent transgress is of this law. Is it
actually working because it's just in that case it's not.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Yeah, statistically, I don't know whether since this particular rule,
and bear in mind that that was something that was
put in place in consultation with the players and their
representatives the icec's Credit Committee to actually, I guess, do
something other than just find them more impose a monetary penalty.
So this was the agreed outcome that maybe they docked
(03:35):
a few points for. And there are only the games
that matter, of course, that will championship games. That's what
we're talking about here. As I say, to get a
minimum standard and have all the teams consistent across in
the number of OBErs that they're delivering in the day's play.
So is it working? I think generally most teams are
trying hard to comply and to meet that standard. So
(03:58):
I'd suggest that yes, it probably is. Is it perfect?
Clearly not. Is there a better way to do it?
Probably mind's better than mine. Across those crediting committees, and
you know, the guys that have played and been involved
in the game at that level. You might have to
go back and see if there's another alternative that they
could bring to beer. But this is certainly the agreed
consensual position to land On was to dock points. And
(04:22):
I think, as I say, generally, most teams seem to
be able to get through. They're over some in New
Zealand has been an excellent performer. I think that this
is if I'm right, this is the first transgression in
terms of being dock points. So we traditionally run the
meeting pace and meaning fast attack. We don't use spinners
a lot of New Zealand we still hit the ninety
(04:43):
overs a day, so it is clearly achievable.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Greg bar joinings. Greg, I'm interested in the ninety overs
a day being possible. I'm presuming tests will run around that.
And there's also the interference of maybe you have twenty
six is that and you lose the ball. Maybe there
are too many bowler changes, maybe drinks, maybe too many wickets,
mid pitch meetings, injuries, list goes on. So when you
(05:07):
look at that ninety overs, how do you take into
account the actual timing of that throughout the day with
the possibility of interruptions. And at the bottom line, it
is possible, I presume if nothing too much goes on.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
Yeah, and all of that is taken into account. There
is the mechanism is in place to make adjustment to
take an account injury or as you said, the number
of times of ball across as a boundary, any mirror
of the kind of things. So all that time that
(05:40):
it has lost for legitimate reasons has taken into account.
So it's not a hard and fast ninety overs. It
might end up being eighty seven overs depending on whatever,
but ninety is the that's the benchmark, and that's the standard.
And then I guess that you know, you come back
from there and better minds than mine across the referees
and the umpires or whatever. We'll use the tools that
(06:02):
they've got to make those calculations to bring it back
to a fear number up unduly penalizing plans or teams.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
I'm sure this has been discussed, but this situation look
in New Zealand, there was already a pretty slim chance
to get to the World Test Championship final. It's pretty
much gone now. I means mathematical chants are granted, but
by deducting points in the World Test Championship, surely that
is more of a punishment to the fan base than
(06:30):
the players themselves, because the fans are the ones that
want to see their team play at the highest level.
So in a sense, they get punished for something that
the players did.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, and again that's another consideration, isn't it.
And that's precisely what happened to Australia in the first
round of the World Test Championship. They were doc points
and I think in a NASHSS series from memory and
that was critical. It meant that they actually missed their
slot in the World Test Championship Final. But I guess
(07:02):
that the opposite applies as well, doesn't it. You know,
those planers to letting the fans down and missing an
opportunity to get to a World Test Championship final by
being sort of slow or not giving enough consideration to
getting through those overs. Because as I said, it's not
(07:24):
like we're not talking about an unreasonable target here. Most
teams in most games managed to hit that ninety over thing,
and there is the mechanism to adjust if there are
good reasons to bring that over a number of overs down.
So we're talking about leggeds here. You know, if they're
just simply not getting through their overs, then maybe the
fans have got the cause to take the team or
(07:47):
the players to account.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Is there a thought, Greg, Is it talked about maybe
changing the amount of overs, extending maybe the hours of play?
Is there a move to take all that into account?
Should this carry on? Because it doesn't happen all the time,
and I think England the chief protagonists here when it
comes to not completing, they're over. But that does that
(08:11):
looked at from an ic C level like.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Have we got this right? Absolutely it is and you know,
there are a number of other considerations as to why
you know, tests play the number of hours through the
course of the day, that is to deal with life
and weather and other conditions like that. So again I
guess that the happy medium has been met somewhere there,
so there is consistency, you know, the subcontinent, and we
(08:38):
still light. Sorry, they lose a light very quickly. A
little bit different, say in New Zealand where you could
extend play. But again I think that where the ninety is,
that is the right number, imposing a minimum standard and
making them get through their overs, because there's nothing more
frustrating to a fan and watching teams that are just
(08:59):
dawdling is getting through the course of the day. You know,
they're stopping there talking, it's more drinks, it's all that
sort of stuff. So and I think the umpires have
a rolled to plan this as well, to move things
along so we're all learning and hopefully it will get better.
But yeah, again I think the standard is not unreasonable.
I don't think and that's not necessarily my view. That's
(09:22):
a view that a lot of people that are involved
with cricket X players across the committees and all the
rest of it, seem to think that that is fair
and that is reasonable. And if that's right, then I
guess the other teams, as you say there, those that
TRANSGRESSI will come into line hopefully, and if they don't
and enough teams aren't able to do that, maybe something
needs to change in terms of the way that we're
(09:43):
doing this. But look, as I said at the outset,
accept that it's probably not perfect and probably needs to
have some more time and some more consideration to see
if there's a better way of doing it, because it
didn't work when they were financially penalized. So going to
the next alternative is what's been agreed, and this is
what we're working with at the moment.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
I'm a cricket naugh I know when time's being wasted.
I can see it. But I wonder how many fans,
casual fans of the game actually even notice. That's another consideration,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Yeah, I think that that's dead right, and yeah, this
is probably you know, if you and I were sitting
there and with d eighty seven oervers not nineteen the day,
would we really notice Probably probably not. But again, you know,
I think that's for the safety consistency. If all those
teams are to be on an equal footing going to
(10:36):
the World Test Championship, then you know, some teams aren't
delivering the overs that they need to. You know, they
should be somehow somewhere. There has to be a consistency
across standards that are being imposed, and you know, that's
just one of them, I guess.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
For more from Sports Talk, listen Lived and News Talks.
They'd be from seven pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to the Sports Talk podcast with Dancy Wildergrave
from News TALKS'B.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
It's eleven minutes after seven. This is sports Talk on
News Talks the B. Greg Barkley to join. It's now
former chairman of the International Cricket Council to talk us
through the decision made by the ICC to not only
find the Englishman and the New Zealanders for slow overrates
in that first Test, but also to dock them championship points.
(00:36):
That's three points each. Engle don't care because they've transgressed
so many times. It doesn't matter. I'm amazed they're still
on positive points quite frankly, doesn't matter to New Zealand.
Well it kind of does. They had a very slender
chance of getting through to that World Test Championship final
and that's got Well there's still a chance. There's still
a chance. It's minimal, but there is still a chance.
(00:57):
So the question is why do you put a fine
out like that? Are you actually punishing the fans? Are
you punishing the players? Is it entire necessary when it's
been pointed out by so many people the game first,
the day and a half early anyway, Why so niggly
over time to answer that, we hope in a whole
lot more. Gregor at Barkley, the former chair it joins
(01:19):
us Now Greg, welcome to the show.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
Hi Dathie, how are you good?
Speaker 2 (01:22):
Good?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
What?
Speaker 2 (01:23):
You've only been out of the job a few days
and already the media are on your case. It doesn't stop,
does it. The issue around at the moment, of course,
is the slow overrate, something that you'd suggest has been
dogging International Cricket will Test Cricket for some time now
in your former position, the attitude that's been taken, the
(01:43):
rules that have been put in place, Why what are
you trying to achieve? What was the ICC trying to
achieve by putting these restrictions and penalties in.
Speaker 3 (01:52):
First of all, it is just about the fans and
making sure that they get what they're paid for, which
is a certain amount of cricket every day. So it
was it was all designed to ensure that you know,
there was a minimum standard and a minimum amount of
cricket was delivered through the course of a day, and
it was deemed at the time and I think that
most teams are able to comply that that was a
(02:13):
fair number of overs to expect any team in test
cricket to get through. There's a second consideration as well
as the fans and fan expectations, there's a commercial consideration
overlay because a number of broadcasters will actually, as part
of their contracts, take the time in between overs to
(02:34):
sell advertising. So of course, if they've paid an amount
for broadcasts and broadcast rights and they're getting eighty overs
in a day not ninety, that's ten to five whatever
slots that they don't have available to them in terms
of advertising returns. So there is a commercial consideration out
of this as well, which potentially puts boards at odds
with their broadcast or their media rights agreements. Primarily it
(02:57):
is about setting a mimum standard to ensure that a
certain amount of cricket has actually played each day.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
To would agree though with teams like news Ill Anni England.
The most recent transgress is of this law. Is it
actually working because it's just in that case it's not.
Speaker 3 (03:12):
Yeah, statistically, I don't know whether since this particular rule,
and bear in mind that that was something that was
put in place in consultation with the players and their
representatives the icec's Credit Committee to actually, I guess, do
something other than just find them more impose a monetary penalty.
So this was the agreed outcome that maybe they docked
(03:35):
a few points for. And there are only the games
that matter, of course, that will championship games. That's what
we're talking about here. As I say, to get a
minimum standard and have all the teams consistent across in
the number of OBErs that they're delivering in the day's play.
So is it working? I think generally most teams are
trying hard to comply and to meet that standard. So
(03:58):
I'd suggest that yes, it probably is. Is it perfect?
Clearly not. Is there a better way to do it?
Probably mind's better than mine. Across those crediting committees, and
you know, the guys that have played and been involved
in the game at that level. You might have to
go back and see if there's another alternative that they
could bring to beer. But this is certainly the agreed
consensual position to land On was to dock points. And
(04:22):
I think, as I say, generally, most teams seem to
be able to get through. They're over some in New
Zealand has been an excellent performer. I think that this
is if I'm right, this is the first transgression in
terms of being dock points. So we traditionally run the
meeting pace and meaning fast attack. We don't use spinners
a lot of New Zealand we still hit the ninety
(04:43):
overs a day, so it is clearly achievable.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
Greg bar joinings. Greg, I'm interested in the ninety overs
a day being possible. I'm presuming tests will run around that.
And there's also the interference of maybe you have twenty
six is that and you lose the ball. Maybe there
are too many bowler changes, maybe drinks, maybe too many wickets,
mid pitch meetings, injuries, list goes on. So when you
(05:07):
look at that ninety overs, how do you take into
account the actual timing of that throughout the day with
the possibility of interruptions. And at the bottom line, it
is possible, I presume if nothing too much goes on.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
Yeah, and all of that is taken into account. There
is the mechanism is in place to make adjustment to
take an account injury or as you said, the number
of times of ball across as a boundary, any mirror
of the kind of things. So all that time that
(05:40):
it has lost for legitimate reasons has taken into account.
So it's not a hard and fast ninety overs. It
might end up being eighty seven overs depending on whatever,
but ninety is the that's the benchmark, and that's the standard.
And then I guess that you know, you come back
from there and better minds than mine across the referees
and the umpires or whatever. We'll use the tools that
(06:02):
they've got to make those calculations to bring it back
to a fear number up unduly penalizing plans or teams.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
I'm sure this has been discussed, but this situation look
in New Zealand, there was already a pretty slim chance
to get to the World Test Championship final. It's pretty
much gone now. I means mathematical chants are granted, but
by deducting points in the World Test Championship, surely that
is more of a punishment to the fan base than
(06:30):
the players themselves, because the fans are the ones that
want to see their team play at the highest level.
So in a sense, they get punished for something that
the players did.
Speaker 3 (06:40):
Yeah, you're absolutely right, and again that's another consideration, isn't it.
And that's precisely what happened to Australia in the first
round of the World Test Championship. They were doc points
and I think in a NASHSS series from memory and
that was critical. It meant that they actually missed their
slot in the World Test Championship Final. But I guess
(07:02):
that the opposite applies as well, doesn't it. You know,
those planers to letting the fans down and missing an
opportunity to get to a World Test Championship final by
being sort of slow or not giving enough consideration to
getting through those overs. Because as I said, it's not
(07:24):
like we're not talking about an unreasonable target here. Most
teams in most games managed to hit that ninety over thing,
and there is the mechanism to adjust if there are
good reasons to bring that over a number of overs down.
So we're talking about leggeds here. You know, if they're
just simply not getting through their overs, then maybe the
fans have got the cause to take the team or
(07:47):
the players to account.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
Is there a thought, Greg, Is it talked about maybe
changing the amount of overs, extending maybe the hours of play?
Is there a move to take all that into account?
Should this carry on? Because it doesn't happen all the time,
and I think England the chief protagonists here when it
comes to not completing, they're over. But that does that
(08:11):
looked at from an ic C level like.
Speaker 3 (08:14):
Have we got this right? Absolutely it is and you know,
there are a number of other considerations as to why
you know, tests play the number of hours through the
course of the day, that is to deal with life
and weather and other conditions like that. So again I
guess that the happy medium has been met somewhere there,
so there is consistency, you know, the subcontinent, and we
(08:38):
still light. Sorry, they lose a light very quickly. A
little bit different, say in New Zealand where you could
extend play. But again I think that where the ninety is,
that is the right number, imposing a minimum standard and
making them get through their overs, because there's nothing more
frustrating to a fan and watching teams that are just
(08:59):
dawdling is getting through the course of the day. You know,
they're stopping there talking, it's more drinks, it's all that
sort of stuff. So and I think the umpires have
a rolled to plan this as well, to move things
along so we're all learning and hopefully it will get better.
But yeah, again I think the standard is not unreasonable.
I don't think and that's not necessarily my view. That's
(09:22):
a view that a lot of people that are involved
with cricket X players across the committees and all the
rest of it, seem to think that that is fair
and that is reasonable. And if that's right, then I
guess the other teams, as you say there, those that
TRANSGRESSI will come into line hopefully, and if they don't
and enough teams aren't able to do that, maybe something
needs to change in terms of the way that we're
(09:43):
doing this. But look, as I said at the outset,
accept that it's probably not perfect and probably needs to
have some more time and some more consideration to see
if there's a better way of doing it, because it
didn't work when they were financially penalized. So going to
the next alternative is what's been agreed, and this is
what we're working with at the moment.
Speaker 2 (10:05):
I'm a cricket naugh I know when time's being wasted.
I can see it. But I wonder how many fans,
casual fans of the game actually even notice. That's another consideration,
isn't it.
Speaker 3 (10:15):
Yeah, I think that that's dead right, and yeah, this
is probably you know, if you and I were sitting
there and with d eighty seven oervers not nineteen the day,
would we really notice Probably probably not. But again, you know,
I think that's for the safety consistency. If all those
teams are to be on an equal footing going to
(10:36):
the World Test Championship, then you know, some teams aren't
delivering the overs that they need to. You know, they
should be somehow somewhere. There has to be a consistency
across standards that are being imposed, and you know, that's
just one of them, I guess.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
For more from Sports Talk, listen Lived and News Talks.
They'd be from seven pm weekdays, or follow the podcast
on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.