England may have won a series in New Zealand for the first time in 16 years, but a lingering bitterness remains. In the first Test, even as they won inside four days, England were fined 15 per cent of their match fees and were docked three World Test Championship points for tardy over rates. In the second Test, England were spared the same fate, but only because they bowled New Zealand out within 80 overs in both innings, which is the point at which over-rate penalties can kick in.

Before the Test in Wellington, captain Ben Stokes declared that he has refused to sign post-match paperwork concerning over-rate penalties since the 2023 Ashes Test at Lord’s. “I won’t until we hear some communication back from the ICC,” he said. “We’re still waiting for that. But they still take the fines off you anyway.”

Stokes’s frustration is understandable. In 34 Tests since he took over as captain, including those that he has missed through injury, England have won 22 games and lost 11. Only one Test – at Old Trafford in the 2023 Ashes – has been drawn, after only one session of play was possible on the last two days. England might be ponderous in their over rates, but they are not in any other aspect of their play.

Stokes could have won Ashes with quicker over rates

Yet two things can be true at the same time. Just as England are scoring quicker than any other team in history, so few teams – if any – have ever bowled their overs slower. Since 2019, there have been 20 over-rate penalties in Test cricket. Nine of these have been committed by England alone.

With quicker over rates, it is just possible that Stokes would already be an Ashes-winning captain. At Old Trafford in the Ashes, 26 overs were lost to slow over rates across the first three days: the equivalent of an entire session of play. Had these been bowled in full, England might conceivably have winkled out five extra Australia second-innings wickets before the Manchester deluge.

Part of Stokes’s complaint – which was gently echoed by New Zealand captain Tom Latham – was that the over-rate rules are inherently harsher on teams who play in more seam-friendly conditions. This seems self-evident: seamers have much longer run-ups.

Yet the contrast in over rates between those countries where seam dominates and spin is preferred is less pronounced than widely thought. Research from Benedict Bermange, Sky Sports’ superb statistician, finds that the over rates in Europe this decade are 13.65; they are 13.55 in Africa and 13.26 in Oceania. In Asia they are only a little higher – 13.98, which rises to 14.17 in India. Even there, where fielding teams have to grapple with extra heat, countries are failing to meet the 15 overs an hour mandated by the ICC’s men’s Test match playing conditions. Not since 1978 have an average of 15 overs per hour been bowled in Test cricket.

If over rates are slower outside Asia, this has not proved any roadblock to other seam-dominant countries reaching the World Test Championship final. The so-called SENA countries – South Africa, England, New Zealand and Australia – are where pace thrives most in Tests. New Zealand won the first World Test Championship, in 2021. Australia won the second World Test Championship, in 2023. Now, South Africa are on course to reach next year’s Test Championship final.

Stokes is emphatically right that England’s slow over rates have not proved any obstacle to positive results. Yet discussion about over rates has never been limited to whether matches do not end in draws. Throughout history, teams have sought to exploit the tactical advantage of bowling overs slower.

The pioneers were probably England’s Ashes-winning side in 1954/55. To give Frank Tyson – “The Typhoon” – a chance to rest during his spells, England bowled about a quarter fewer overs per hour than Australia. While the crowd booed England’s tardiness, Len Hutton’s side won 3-1. A generation later, critiques of West Indies’ slow over rates were not based on fears that they would lead to an excess of draws – such results, of course, would have been gratefully received by opponents. Instead, the concerns were that deliberately slow over rates gave West Indies an unfair advantage – ensuring that their fast bowlers remained fresh, and that the side had no need to bowl weaker back-up bowlers.

England gain advantages from slow over rates

Today, slow over rates give England two significant tactical advantages. The first is to allow Stokes to tinker with the field almost every ball: this often makes for compelling cricket, but at a cost to the over rate. The second advantage is to make it easier for pace bowlers to bowl longer spells. A side bowling their overs at closer to the rate advocated by the International Cricket Council are left needing to bowl more back-up bowlers: a significant disadvantage.

The penalties, however irritating, are designed to ensure that all teams must bowl their overs at a certain speed. Even when England bowl a significant amount of spin, they still fall far short of the over-rate requirements: on the first day in Christchurch, Shoaib Bashir bowled 20 overs, yet the side only delivered 83 overs. Had England been compelled to bowl an extra seven overs in the same period, these would have been bowled either by tiring quick bowlers, Bashir or back-up bowlers.

Stokes is right, too, that the current over-rate rules are flawed. It is a strange quirk that fielding teams cannot be penalised if they bowl opponents out in under 80 overs – a rule that Usman Khawaja successfully lobbied the ICC for during the last Ashes. In Adelaide against India last week, Australia had a derisory over rate – but they bowled India out cheaply twice, with their three seamers sharing all 20 wickets.

Still, for all these valid critiques, penalties remain a valid solution to try to improve over rates. From 18.5 overs an hour in the 1950s, over rates have plummeted to just 13.6 an hour this decade. The vast majority of the decrease came before the greater use of technology.

Even with such dawdling, fans see more compelling cricket than ever before. This decade, there are both more runs and more wickets on average than in any decade since the 1950s. The average six-hour passage this decade – the allotted hours of play, before the extra half hour is taken – see 271 runs scored for 8.9 wickets, even with only 81.5 overs. In the 1950s, when 110.5 overs were bowled per day, spectators saw an average of 253 runs for 8.8 wickets in a day.

Parallels with Man City’s critiques of financial regulations

Yet if Test cricket fans have never had it so good, then there remains a strong argument that quicker over rates would make the game even better. If the ICC became laxer about enforcing regulations, over rates would surely only plummet further. If teams can enjoy an advantage by bowling their overs slower, this penalises sides who are not as tardy.

So the rules on over rates might be deeply imperfect. But, as the second-best resourced nation in world cricket, England ought to be fully aware of such rules.

Indeed, in aspects of England’s complaining it is not hard to discern parallels with some of Manchester City’s critiques of financial fair play regulations. In both cases, there are very valid reasons to change the existing regulations – and the teams are perfectly entitled to push for subsequent tweaks. But England, like Man City, have signed up to the rules as they are today. They can hardly then complain about their enforcement.