On day one of the Lord's Test, 83 overs were bowled with the addition of the extra half-hour. Seven overs lost, never to come back. On day two, India ended England's innings within the first 30 overs, and England bowled 43 overs by stumps, again with the use of the extra half-hour. Fifteen overs lost, never to come back. On day three, India batted for another 77 overs and bowled one at England in the scheduled six hours plus the extra half-hour. Ten overs lost never to come back.
There has been widespread hand-wringing and criticism of the teams, the match officials, and the ICC for "robbing" patrons of cricket. Is it fair to look at over rates through the lens of overs lost, though? What does it say about our empathy for players and our understanding of Test cricket's competitive framework?
Over rates are not calculated every day or even every innings, but across a match. If a bowling side is able to bowl the opposition out in under 80 overs, that innings is not considered for calculations unless the over rate goes beyond the required 15 per hour.
Note the intrinsic understanding of the ICC: if you bowl your opposition out in under 80 overs, you are providing the patrons enough entertainment so they don't feel "robbed" of the extra few overs. At any rate, unless you get wickets with the last ball before a break, you get an allowance of 18 minutes for taking nine wickets, not counting the one that ends the innings. Drinks breaks are worth four minutes each.
So, assuming you have bowled a side out in 80 overs in six-and-a-half hours, you can directly chop off the extra half-hour as allowance for wickets and drinks. Add DRS reviews - at least three because the batting side generally exhaust theirs if they are bowled out - injury timeouts, ball changes, and running repairs, and you lose about 15 minutes in a day. So the over rate here is 80 divided 5.75, which is close to 14 an hour, which isn't as shabby as the crude boiling down to ten overs lost that viewers will never get back.
It is important to remember that even the ICC doesn't expect teams to bowl all 90 overs in a day if they are using a lot of fast bowling. Match referees privately say that 90 overs of predominantly fast bowling is too much to expect, and needs a review. The question we need to grapple with here is: do we want generous amounts of part-time spin to complete the chore of 90 overs every day, or do we want Test cricket at its highest intensity?
Umpires and referees tend to lean towards the latter, which is why they are apparently lenient towards players taking frequent breaks, be it to change sweaty gloves or worry about the ball's shape. Even gamesmanship, as in the dying moments of day three at Lord's, can create intense drama between two competitive teams doing what they should: England wanting to face as few deliveries as possible and India trying to bowl as many as possible. These are Test cricketers, not obedient schoolboys who should meekly face two overs or quietly bowl just one when denied the chance for another.
The ICC is not saying it in as many words because it will attract even more criticism, but the playing conditions and the track record of match officials tend to suggest that expectations for overs bowled in a day are realistic at a time when draws without weather interruptions are extremely rare, even on flat Bazball pitches, and when Test cricket is being played at a higher intensity than ever before.
It is easy to bowl 90 overs in a day when the batters are letting you bowl to a plan unchallenged. Batting is more attacking than even before, and asks the bowling team to think on their feet and make more fielding changes to counter it. It is no surprise that all the recent instances of teams being docked World Test Championship (WTC) points for over-rate offences have either come in high-scoring games, or Tests involving a lot of fast bowling, or both. Before Lord's, Pakistan were the last team to be penalised: they went for 615 in Cape Town, where they had only one spinner in a five-man attack. Before that, both England and New Zealand were penalised in Christchurch: again lots of runs and lots of fast bowling.
Another argument does hold some merit: there is competitive advantage to be gained by bowling too slowly, either as gamesmanship or by way of hiding a lack of fitness and conditioning. This is perhaps a more salient cause for concern and more relevant in limited-overs cricket - as is the general over-rates problem - but we can trust the match officials for that. They are consistent with the allowances they make. They don't want the spotlight on them, so they push teams less conspicuously than by waving their arms and sending back drinks on live TV.
There remain concerns to be addressed. The penalties for slow over-rates seem to be disproportionately harsh given the otherwise empathetic attitude of match officials. England's over rate cost them a sixth of the WTC points they earned for winning the Lord's Test. Then again, you can argue that teams should pay dearly if they are still slow after all the allowances they get, and after the introduction of stop clocks.
The over rates at Lord's were fairly similar in the first innings, but India used more spin in the second innings - not to make up time but because their spinners became threatening - and went past 15 overs per hour and improved their overall over rate for the match.
While England, too, bowled India out in less than 80 overs in the second innings, they couldn't go past 15 per hour with an injured spinner in their ranks. So their second-innings over rate had no impact on the overall calculations.
Teams playing more often in conditions that call for predominantly quick bowling find themselves under more pressure on over rates. The ICC is not unaware of this. Perhaps a solution will be worked out by the next WTC cycle. Until then, if we take a moment to appreciate how much Test cricket has changed and how over rates are really calculated, we will be less angry about overs lost.