Explained: Why is Ben Stokes angry with ICC? Is the over-rate rule wrong?
England captain Ben Stokes has entered near-forbidden territory by engaging in a war with the International Cricket Council (ICC), after his side were docked points yet again in the World Test Championship (WTC) cycle. England and New Zealand were both found guilty of maintaining a slow over rate during the recently concluded first Test in Christchurch, leading to three points being taken away along with a 15 percent match fee fine.
Stokes took to Instagram to voice his displeasure, writing "Good on you ICC. Finished the game with 10 hours left." The latest slow over-rate offense means that England have had 22 points deducted from their tally, leaving them in sixth position, and out of contention in the WTC Finals race.
Stokes elaborated his point regarding the over-rates during the build-up to the second Test against New Zealand, demanding clear answers from the ICC.
"The most frustrating thing, from both teams' points of view, is that the game finished early, there was a result. There's so many tactical decisions that you need to make, whether that be chatting with the bowler or field changes. As a captain, I like to change things quite a lot and the field could be completely different six balls in an over. But that's not taken into consideration. And getting told to just 'hurry up' isn't going to fix it, because we're out there playing a game," Stokes said (via ESPN Cricinfo).
History has shown that players speaking out against issues regarding over-rate rules has forced the ICC to implement some form of a change. At the start of the current WTC cycle, Australian batter Usman Khawaja had bemoaned the steep fines that were being inflicted on the players because of the slow over rates.
In response, the ICC introduced a maximum cap of 50 percent fine while instances where teams bowled less than 80 overs were not considered for over-rate breaches, while the earlier limit was 60.
It remains to be seen whether Stokes' outrage, with considerable support from his peers, leads to change or not.
Is Ben Stokes' outrage justified?
Slow-over rates are a nightmare for captains. Right from former India skipper Sourav Ganguly, who explained the ramifications of the rule breach to Mohammad Yousuf when the latter was getting treatment for an injury during the second ODI against Pakistan in Vizag in 2005, and now to Ben Stokes, complaining about the same issue in a different light.
A lot has changed in two decades in this regard, but the biggest factor is ICC's almost no-tolerance policy. While earlier it was a matter of financial penalties, the governing body slowly introduced ramifications that would impact the fortunes of a team in the long run as points deduction came into the picture. The bigger the punishment, the less temptation for the crime, was the bedrock of this implementation, but it has not panned out that way.
Australia missed out on the inaugural WTC final due to a points deduction, similar course of events have led England astray from the races in the business end too. The ICC have talked about implementing an in-game penalty for slow over rates like in limited overs cricket, but it is yet to translate from the paper to the field.
From Ben Stokes; perspective, the rapid pace at which they approach the game arguably negates the slow over-rate rule to an extent. England have been found guilty across five Tests, but nearly all of them led to a result (rain led to a draw in Manchester in the 2023 Ashes).
So, as such, there were no such consequences of maintaining a slow over-rate. There was no act of deliberate time-wasting to force a draw or avoid certain challenging circumstances in the game. The England captain is perhaps feeling defeated and punished by rulebooks and bureaucracy for a gray-area crime.
Is over-rate a plaguing issue in the longest format?
Time wasting is a universal conundrum in the world of sports. Some sports pause the clock when the ball goes out of play to preserve time (NBA, for instance). The Premier League in England implemented a rule of adding up all the pauses, and including it after the regulation period of 90 minutes.
The plan backfired with tired players not having the legs to play 100 minutes on a consistent basis. So, the ICC are not alone in finding the optimal approach to ensure the smoothest possible optimization of time.
In cricket, the in-game penalty relating to fielding restrictions for slow over-rate has fit perfectly in white-ball formats. It was arguably the need of the hour too as broadcasters have time slots, and with most limited overs matches occurring under the lights, one cannot afford to have contests stretching into ungodly hours.
However, that begs the question - is it such a pressing issue in Tests, and is it severe enough to hamper a team's qualification hopes?
England put on a stunning show to claw their way back into the 2023 Ashes, with the 2-2 draw being one of the most memorable series in recent memory, and a great advertisement for Test cricket. What did they get for that? A grand total of 9 points, following a staggering 19-point deduction due to slow over rate.
The over-rate rule in principle is justified, which all captains might unanimously agree, because ensuring the steady flow of the game, under a set of rules applicable to all is crucial. However, the reason why it is not being received well is because it is a tad skewered.
Unless there is a deliberate, and obvious attempt to slow down proceedings considerably, the ICC could do without any intervention. From a different perspective, the stop-clock initiative from limited overs can perhaps be brought over to Tests as well, if feasible, to ensure a streamlined process between the overs, which is where time is arguably lost rather than during the actual play.
With this, the bowling side will be a bit more aware, and will have a fair idea, of where they stand as they move along in the game, rather than having to check the over-rates at the end of each hour, session, and day.
The SENA/Subcontinent disparity
A common point highlighted by both Ben Stokes and Tom Latham in their case against the slow over-rate, was the stark difference in the over-rate across conditions. While an 'over' is a standardized term, comprising a set of six deliveries, it is different in different contexts.
"I guess the most frustrating thing is that it's always an issue depending on where you are in the world and the style of cricket that's played. There's never an over-rate issue in Asia because of how much spin is played," Stokes had mentioned.
“It’s certainly a challenge to get through those 15 overs an hour if the ball’s flying to the boundary a little bit more than usual. We’ve seen in the subcontinent where a lot of spin’s used, where that isn’t necessarily an issue. But maybe that’s something that does need to be reviewed because we’re certainly trying our best," Latham backed Stokes' cause ahead of the second Test in Wellington (via The Indian Express).
A Ravindra Jadeja over in the subcontinent is hardly the same as a Mark Wood over in England. This is reflected in the WTC table as well, with the majority of the breaches coming in matches held in SENA countries, where pacers bowl the majority of the overs.
India's sole over-rate breach in the WTC cycle came in South Africa. Australia also had their solitary points deduction in England. For Ben Stokes and co, it has come in their home turf and New Zealand.
A separate, more lenient slow-over rate slab for such conditions could be a measure, but again, that comes with its own set of problems.