This tweet from Homer says it for all India fans:
You get paid to play 450 overs/6 hrs a day for 5 days.. Why not play, unless u are losing? Why take your bat and ball and go home?
I have always found this “mandatory overs” and “optional 15 overs” stuff on the last day of a Test extremely weird. I mean, there are cases where it is pretty much impossible for any result other than a draw, but most of those situations are very clear even before the final 15 overs. For example, you could have 550 and 480 in the first two innings and then the first team bats again with 50 overs left on the last day. Or you lose 4 days to rain and you just have 90 overs on the last day for four innings. You pretty much know the match is going to be a draw and could end it then. So the 15-over thing serves as an arbitrary limit.
Theoretically, the captains could call it off anytime. Of course, that won’t work because people have bought tickets and will get upset if you just call off the entire day or even half the day. 15 overs (an hour or so) seems designed to avoid too much complaint. Until it is abused as in today’s match between India and West Indies. 86 off 90 is not an impossibility. I suspect that if the 15 overs were not optional, India would have scored more runs and thus had a more favorable equation.
In situations like this, it is not the absolute impossibility of a result that makes both teams agree to a draw. Ironically, it is the possibility of a result. Neither team wants to lose. India doesn’t like it because they don’t want a 1-0 series win become a 1-1 series draw in search of a 2-0 result. West Indies don’t want it because a 0-2 result would be traumatic after a major rescue effort by the tail, not to mention all the problems with their Board. Neither team gets an ideal result, but the compromise is the least worst result. Based on the justifications, it seems like India was more worried that losing 7 wickets was a greater likelihood in 15 overs than making 80-odd runs.
I am not going to blame either team for this, because the incentives for the teams (coaches, captains and players) are biased against taking risks. In the last few years, I can recall India settling for a 1-0 win when they could have tried for 2-0 at least three times (against England, Pakistan and New Zealand) through more challenging declarations. But the rules of the game need not be skewed towards encouraging such proclivities. Make the teams play the extra hour without any choice.
Also it is not very clear to me why there needs to be a distinction between the “wide” calls in Test cricket versus limited overs cricket. I think if there is less margin for wide deliveries, you could see more results.
Finally, I am reminded of that Adelaide Ashes match where Australia had 36 overs to chase 168 and they did it in 33 overs. Today India had 47 overs to make 180, reached 94 in 32 overs and then quit. Different match circumstances and all that, but there is a reason why nobody questioned Australia’s No. 1 rating.
Bonus: This is a good one by Zaltzman
