\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/figure>\nThe time is now ripe to engage with the sceptics. Not only those of the Cricket Web forum back in mid-August last year in relation to a proposal that I had posted, but also those who I label Test match \u201cdoomsters\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
There is a hiatus with England\u2019s Test matches at present, extending from January to early-June this year, when they meet New Zealand; and not much else is happening at Test level prior to that (two Bangladesh vs Pakistan matches in early-mid May, and one Ireland vs New Zealand match in late-May).<\/p>\n
This two-part article is produced here not <\/em>to try and convince the sceptics and doomsters at great length in an earnest attempt to get them to change their (generally steadfast) positions. Rather, it is to respond to them in a spirited, and sometimes provocative, way. Yes, it is intended to make them sit up and think\u2026hard.<\/p>\nA number of criticisms were levelled by participants of the Cricket Web forum last August of my proposed 100 (or 110) Overs limit for each team\u2019s first innings in men\u2019s Test matches.<\/p>\n
One of these participants \u2013 Starfighter <\/em>\u2013 offered the opinion about a similar rule that was applied a while ago for the English County Championship (hereafter abbreviated to CTY CHAMP) \u2013 saying, \u201c It was afterwards almost universally considered to be a disaster.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nThis was, in effect, an invitation to examine such a claim \u2013 duly done in this Part I. That rule seems to have had a number of favourable effects, as outlined shortly.<\/p>\n
Another participant \u2013 Swede<\/em> \u2013 considered my proposal to be \u201cA terrible solution to a problem that does not exist.\u201d<\/em> Although this person didn\u2019t say why<\/em> they consider it a terrible solution, I produce below evidence on the frequency of Test matches that are a foregone conclusion well before their ending. This is done prior to outlining what I view to be the merits of my proposal.<\/p>\nOther cautionary, and adverse, comments are addressed in Part II in considering the present state of Test cricket.<\/p>\n
Nature of My Proposal: a recap<\/strong><\/p>\nTo recap on the nature of my proposal, titled Can Test Matches Get Even Better? \u2013 <\/em>as published on the Cricket Web site on 13 August 2025 (1,360 words):<\/p>\nThis was to impose a limit on the number of overs to be received by each team\u2019s first innings in Tests, setting this maximum at either 100 or 110 overs.<\/p>\n
Assuming both teams survive their full quota, this would typically occupy one full day\u2019s play, plus a further 18 \u2013 or 28 \u2013 overs which would take up around 1 hour and 20 minutes \u2013 or 2 hours and 5 minutes \u2013 of playing time on day two (based on a grand average for the previous two and a half calendar years of Tests, with 13.6 overs being delivered per hour).<\/p>\n
These maximums for overs to be received were my intuitive guesses at reasonable limits to impose, and I had them tested through an investigation of their likely impact, using match results and innings-by-innings statistics for four of the major Test playing countries. The period examined was the start of 2023 through to a cut-off at early-August 2025. The countries concerned being England, Australia, South Africa and India.<\/p>\n
For those matches when one team used up at least 100 overs, I gave greatest attention to establishing:<\/p>\n
\nThe proportion of matches won; and how many of these wins were big \u2013 ie by a margin of 100 plus runs or 6 plus wickets.<\/li>\n The proportion of draws: firstly, due to a high scoring match; and, secondly, due to bad weather.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nMain Findings<\/em><\/p>\nFor cases when 100 Plus Overs were used up by one of the two teams<\/span>It should be noted that of all the \u201cbig wins\u201d included in this summary, only four were against \u201cminnows\u201d \u2013 ie against Zimbabwe (three) and Ireland (one), whilst there were none played against Afghanistan.<\/p>\n
Of interest is that 11 of the 25 Wins occurred when the team concerned batted second \u2013 with 8 of those 11 wins being big ones. So initial use of the pitch wasn\u2019t a dominant factor.<\/p>\n
(There is, above, a small correction from my August 2025 article, which gave Big Wins as 19 instead of 20.)<\/p>\n
Benefits if a 100 Overs Limit had Applied<\/em><\/p>\nThe principal impact would have been, instead of having a high frequency of matches dominated by one team and a more or less inevitable, foregone, conclusion well before the actual end of the match, the dullness for spectators would have been much reduced. And so the overall level of enjoyment derived from watching these matches, at the grounds and on television, would have been be considerably increased.<\/p>\n
Examining the sample taken indicates that when a first innings lasts for more than around 100 overs, the match often tends to become very one-sided \u2013 generally fairly early on \u2013 with only one of the teams then being able to produce a victory. This tendency would be alleviated.<\/p>\n
Also, by imposing a 100 overs limit on the first innings, the perceived \u201cthreat\u201d of the demise of Test Cricket should be reduced, as discussed in my Part II.<\/p>\n
There are some additional beneficial effects to bear in mind:<\/p>\n
\nWith five days of scheduled play, and no restriction on number of overs received, there is no pressure on the side going in to bat first to score at more than around 3.3 runs per over (being typical for the period 2022-24, other than for England) \u2013 unless the team is behind in the series. This lack of pressure could easily engender an ultra-conservative approach to batting.<\/li>\n The workload and stress on fast bowlers \u2013 with long run ups and high energy expended \u2013 would be more manageable and extend their career spans.<\/li>\n The cost of Test match tickets in England is currently between around 90 and 160 pounds \u2013 expensive in most people\u2019s budget! Value for money therefore needs to be a consideration.<\/li>\n Eventually, the sale value of broadcasting rights may be dented if overs received is left unrestricted. Since this is what funds professional cricket the world over, this also needs considering.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nMost of the game\u2019s rules and regulations exist to impose penalties for certain actions. In contrast, this proposed stipulation would be there to avoid certain situations occurring (as outlined) for the benefit of spectators, while also contributing to the health of this \u201cpinnacle\u201d format of the game.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c\u201c`<\/p>\n
The initial criticism \u2013 by Starfighter,<\/em> noted above \u2013 motivated a good deal of research into the 200 over limit rule placed on the combined first innings of CTY CHAMP matches of the 1970s, and also some other experiments made during the 1960s through to the late-1980s. This investigation was largely conducted by Bruce Kempen, a London-based researcher having access to all relevant back issues of The Cricketer<\/em> magazine as well as editions of the annual Wisden Cricketers\u2019 Almanack<\/em> \u2013 these, seemingly, being the two best sources.<\/p>\nOverall Success of the Similar Rule Applied in CTY CHAMP Matches<\/strong><\/p>\nFrom start of the 1974 English season, through to end of the 1980 season, there was a limit placed of 200 overs for the teams\u2019 combined first innings in the county championship matches. The team batting first was restricted to a maximum of 100 overs, and any overs of the quota not used up were then added to the other team\u2019s first innings quota, which gave an incentive for bowlers to search for wickets. This regulation was \u201creceived well enough by the players.\u201d<\/p>\n
In regard to its main objectives, this rule can be counted as a success. These objectives being to:<\/p>\n
\nencourage attacking play and lower the frequency of draws, and<\/li>\n reduce the all too common practice of collusion between the captains, using declarations to set up a last day run chase \u2013 in an attempt to obtain a positive result, following an academic couple of days solely in search of bonus points.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nIt was also thought by EW Swanton, supported by some other commentators, that it would \u201cbring back spin bowling with a stretching of the second innings.\u201d<\/p>\n
Collusion between captains became less common as a result of imposing this rule \u2013 \u201cmore genuine, uncontrived, results\u201d \u2013 and it did cut down materially (rather than just trivially) on the high proportion of draws. In a review article of December 1983<\/em> by the Hampshire captain, Nick Pocock, he noted there had been a return to a good deal of collusion between captains following the elimination of the 100 Overs regulation \u2013 again, so as to try to get a positive result in the three-day matches.<\/p>\nThe stats on the proportion of drawn county matches show a material reduction, of 11% in proportional terms, for the seven seasons when the overs limitation was being applied:<\/p>\n
\nPrior to the rule, from 1967-73: 52.3% drawn matches<\/li>\n During the rule, 7 seasons from 1974-80: 46.9% of draws<\/li>\n Afterwards, from 1981-87: 53.0% of draws<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n(ie before 4-day matches were phased in during 1988-93)<\/em><\/p>\nHowever, inconclusive outcomes were endemic with two innings a side 3-day matches, given the shortage of potential playing time and the inroads made by typical English spring\/summer weather.<\/p>\n
At their meeting in February 1981, the Test and County Cricket Board (TCCB) voted to dispense with the first innings limitation for county matches as from the start of that season.<\/p>\n
Through his published lectures at Cambridge University in 1961, Edward Hallett Carr has taught us that history inevitably involves interpretation, not just straightforward use of an assembly of what are deemed to be factual materials.<\/p>\n
To quote him:<\/p>\n
To praise a historian for his accuracy is like praising an architect for using well-seasoned timber in his building. It is a necessary condition of his work, but not his essential function\u2026Of course, facts and documents are needed by the historian. But they do not, by themselves, constitute history. History means interpretation.<\/em><\/p>\nE. H. Carr, What is History? <\/em>Penguin Books,Second edition 1987 (pages 10-11).<\/p>\nMy interpretation of Bruce Kempen\u2019s research (as set out in Appendix I) is that this restriction of overs for first innings was dropped not<\/em> because of the fact that some county representatives considered it discouraged the fielding side from attacking in the first innings \u2013 which is itself rather surprising as Tests sides are often dismissed for less than 100 overs in their first innings.<\/p>\nBy my count, during the period of this limitation on overs delivered, England succumbed in Tests in their first innings for under 100 overs on 31 occasions during the 72 matches, a little more than half of which were of under 80 overs duration (17 cases).<\/em><\/p>\nRather, it was dropped for the reason that the Board itself published about their decision: \u201cWe have made the change in the hope that potential Test cricketers can play in the best possible conditions.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nThis explanation links tothe point that a number of county representatives thought this restriction on number of overs often had an adverse effect on middle order batsmen, inducing them to attack before getting settled-in, and that it worked against spin bowlers (in the first innings). It was the insidious desire to treat the CTY CHAMP as a preparation for potential Test players that seems to have been the fundamental reason for the abolition of this regulation.<\/p>\n
It can be argued that if the CTY CHAMP were to be treated as a competition for its own sake<\/em>, with players emerging as Test match material incidentally as it were, then a limit of 100 overs was not stringent, or severe, enough \u2013 especially for the aim of lowering the incidence of draws. Indeed, it had a tougher forebear, as discussed shortly.<\/p>\nFour-day matches were introduced, along with \u201cfull covering\u201d of pitches (ie during any gaps in play due to bad weather as well as overnight) primarily to provide a better format for grooming potential players for the national side. Using the County Championship for this purpose was a strong under-current in the TCCB\u2019s thinking during the 1970s right through to the \u201990s and has persisted under the ECB (replacing the TCCB at the start of 1997).<\/p>\n
In March 1993, Simon Heffer (deputy editor of the UK\u2019s Spectator<\/em> magazine) observed:<\/p>\n\u201cIn recent years, cricket authorities have done nothing to promote the county game. It has now been reduced to a training camp for the national side. The principal reason for extending county matches to four days, it\u2019s alleged, is to better prepare them for their prime purpose in life \u2013 playing for England. It will ensure that that the financial losses experienced by county clubs are even larger \u2013 an absurdity!\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nThis mentality of using county matches for preparing players for Test cricket also underlay the TCCB\u2019s instructions to the counties to prepare better pitches for batting on \u2013 dry, hard, fast and true (more reliable) ones. There were repeated exhortations made to the counties to prepare such pitches, with them expressing commitments which, usually, didn\u2019t amount to much in practice.<\/p>\n
In parallel, the TCCB took a decision to bring in full covering of pitches (as noted above) \u2013 which had been mandatory practice for all Tests in England since 1979, after a staged introduction. It was also hoped that the extended scheduled of play in county matches \u2013 the extra day \u2013 would encourage spin bowlers, at least on the last day with an expected wearing and turning pitch.<\/p>\n
In the June 1988 issue of The Cricketer<\/em> magazine, Christopher Martin-Jenkins wrote:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\nEngland have certainly been acceptable in the SLA department since four-day county matches came in. With Phil Tufnell (1990-2001) \u2013 brilliant in patches \u2013 plus Ashley Giles (2000-2006, following one match in 1998), though expensive overall; and Monty Panesar (2006-13). These three followed on from a tradition exemplified by Derek Underwood (1966-82) and Phil Edmonds (1975-87).<\/em> Although high quality off-spinners have been few and far between for England \u2013 the deeds of Graeme Swann (2008-13) being a notable exception. David Acfield, who played first-class matches for fully two decades (1966-86) was, for some reason unknown to me, overlooked by the Test selectors. Maybe if Acfield had worked more on his batting (he averaged 8.2) and had forgone fencing as a sport\u2026..<\/em> \u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n\u201cOn the experiment with four-day matches: the hope {realised} is that it will encourage spinners by giving them some wearing pitches to exploit towards the end of the games.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\nAs for (right arm) leg spinners, there\u2019s been a dearth of them for England\u2019s Test matches. One of the few who has been effective at that level (this being prior to 4-day county matches) was Tommy Greenhough of Lancashire, who also employed a googly. He bowled in eight Test innings, during 1959-60, all being at home \u2013 against India (six innings) and against South Africa (two innings). He had no poor matches and snared his 16 victims at a very commendable 22.3 runs apiece \u2013 doing so with surprising economy, conceding only 1.9 runs per over. However, as Martin Williamson has pointed out, defensive finger spinners were the vouge for England in those times and Greenhough was considered something of a luxury, given he contributed little with the bat.<\/em> <\/p>\nOff-break staples in Greenhough\u2019s playing days were: Jim Laker (Tests from 1948-59) with 193 victims \u2013 2.2 per innings \u2013 at a misery cost of 21.2 runs apiece; Roy Tattersall (16 Tests from 1951-54); Fred Titmus (Tests from 1955-75) with 153 wickets at 1.7 per innings, captured at 32.2 runs apiece; Ray Illingworth (Tests from 1958-73), 122 wickets at 1.2 per innings, costing 31.2 runs apiece; and David Allen (Tests from 1960-66), also taking 122 wickets, doing so at 1.9 per innings at a cost of 30.9 runs apiece.<\/em> \u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\nDuring this period of the mid-1960s through to the late-1980s, various levels of fines were tried in a generally unsuccessful<\/em> endeavour to raise the sluggish over rate. And the frequency of drawn CTY CHAMP four-day matches up to the end of the 2024 season, although somewhat lower than for the previous three-dayers, averaged an unhealthy 39%.<\/p>\nAt least one prominent commentator \u2013 former Test player, Derek Pringle \u2013 has recently called for a reversion to three-day county matches and uncovered pitches, and to forget about the long-held aim of making the championship basically a means of preparing Test players. This is, anyway, now a fraught aim with the advent of \u201ccentral contracts\u201d from season 2000 and with the England selectors paying little attention to how players are performing in county matches. Make the county matches interesting and enjoyable for their own sake, Pringle urges. (The Case for Three-Day Cricket:<\/em> article appearing in The Cricketer magazine, Summer 2025.)<\/p>\nA Draconian Forebear<\/strong><\/p>\nThe \u201c200 overs for both sides combined\u201d regulation had a draconian forebear. In 1966, a restriction of a maximum of 65 overs for CTY CHAMP matches was imposed on each team\u2019s first innings. This followed a decision taken that March by the Advisory County Cricket Committee (based on a recommendation of a special sub-committee).<\/p>\n
Billed as an \u201cexperiment\u201d, it wasn\u2019t applied right across the board, but rather to each county\u2019s initial 12 matches against opposition they played twice \u2013 which covered just over two-fifths of all the Championship matches (102 of 238 matches). There was no limit on the number of overs that a given bowler may deliver in these innings.<\/p>\n
The underlying reasons given by the Committee for imposing this rule were to:<\/p>\n
(a) Give spectators more entertainment on the first day<\/em>, as they would be able to see both sides bat.<\/p>\nNoting: \u201cThe drop in attendances demands a serious attempt to find a remedy.\u201d The aggregate figure for 1965 (excluding tourist matches) was 659,560, this being the lowest of any year since records had been kept. The average gate for 1963-65 was 25% below that for 1960-62 which, in turn, was 17% down on 1957-59.<\/p>\n
(b) Encourage the use of spin bowling in the second innings<\/em>, as these innings will typically be longer.<\/p>\n(c) Encourage the preparation of good pitches<\/em>, with the second innings usually being longer than the first \u2013 being pointed out as redundant as every county had already pledged to provide such pitches.<\/p>\nThe low standard of pitch preparation was noted as a concern. \u201cPitches need to be brought back to a high standard to produce a similar number of top-class players as there were before WW2.<\/p>\n
Former Test player Tony Lewis considered the move was an attempt to get out of the rut. \u201cIt has gone to the heart of the matter and I anticipate the best results.\u201d<\/em> He suggested that, on a real turner of a pitch, one might see an off-spinner with 7, or even 8, fielders on the leg side. He expected the 65 overs limit to benefit batsmen with the widest range of strokes and who perform well under pressure.<\/p>\nThe criticisms of county cricket, at that time, centred on:<\/p>\n
\nThe first innings of both teams had become a prolonged manoeuvre with resultant dull play on the initial two days.<\/li>\n Lack of spectator appeal: attendances had continually declined over the years.<\/li>\n Substantial financial losses were being incurred annually by the Counties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nDoug Insole, then Chairman of Test Selectors, noted: \u201cThis experiment has long been recommended by some counties<\/em>, and it is probably right that it should be put to the test.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nThere were a number of sceptics, and some were downright opposed to it \u2013 the most trenchant critic in advance of its implementation being Jim Swanton.<\/p>\n
Come mid-season, Tony Lewis reported: \u201cThe anti-65 Over regulation voices are increasing and booming. Why should the weaker side be kept in the game by this artificial restriction?\u201d<\/p>\n
He continued: \u201cIt has<\/em> produced a weird fashion of slogging\u2026a series of undignified slogs during the last 10-15 overs; and also produced a climax on the first day, rather than late in the game when victory is to be gained or denied.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\nAfter-the-event statistics showed:<\/p>\n
\nNearly two-thirds of the 101 matches under the 65 Over rule produced a definite result \u2013 that is, 61 of them, or 60.4% \u2013<\/em> with a further 40 matches being drawn (ignoring one abandoned match without any play taking place).<\/li>\nThis compared with 54.6%<\/em> for the other 130 matches played up to end of August that year without the restriction. The proportions for the previous three years being: 1965: 51.7%; 1964: 58.0%; and 1963: 51.7%.<\/li>\nThe average for the three years, 1963-65, being 53.8%,<\/em> which is 11% lower than for the 65 Over rule that applied to matches in 1966. So the rule produced a substantial increase in the frequency of positive outcomes.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\nAlso of interest:<\/p>\n
\nFor nearly half of the matches under this rule, 46 of the 101, definite results occurred without a third-innings declaration.<\/em><\/li>\nLittle or no advantage was gained by the side having first use of the pitch.<\/li>\n Only once did a side get to 300 on first innings, and only 11 batsmen scored a century in these regulated matches (a few of the batsmen doing so multiple times, producing 15 centuries in total).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nWisden highlighted:<\/em><\/p>\n\u201cOpposition to the 65 Over experiment was mainly due to the problem it set the middle-order batsmen. <\/em>They often couldn\u2019t settle down to build an innings and had to push the score along before being ready to do so.\u201d<\/p>\nAlso: \u201cIt favoured the weaker bowling sides<\/em>, and a premium was put on a negative attack and supporting field placings to keep the score down, rather than endeavouring to dismiss the opposition.\u201d<\/p>\nAt the Advisory County Cricket Committee meeting in November that year (1966), the decision was taken to discontinue the 65 Over first innings experiment, reflecting the adverse comments already referred to.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, more than two and a half decades later, in 1991 Ted Lester, the former Yorkshire County batsman and subsequent scorer, suggested a limit on first innings in the CTY CHAMP as low as 60 overs.<\/em><\/p>\n(A forceful and entertaining right hand batsman, Ted Lester played 347 innings in first-class matches between 1945 and 1956, when age 22 to 33 \u2013 averaging 34.2 per completed innings with 25 centuries. Afterwards scoring for the county through to 1992.)<\/p>\n
Pursuing the theme of wanting to end the contrived county match finishes, Lester said:<\/p>\n
\nContrived finishes have done nothing to arrest either the decline in county membership levels or the reduction in paying spectators at the grounds.<\/li>\n The present Championship matches usually comprise two days playing for bonus points, with the third day producing a brand of cricket more akin to the one-day game.<\/li>\n He advocated a limit of only 60 overs for each team\u2019s first innings, along with extended hours of play on the first day, so as to complete both first innings (with bonus points to be awarded to the team ahead on first innings). Saying: One could then proceed normally on the second and third days without recourse to any form of contrivance.<\/li>\n He also proposed to restrict the number of batsmen participating in the first innings, suggesting that only 6 be allowed; hence, the innings would be closed after the fall of the fifth wicket. This, he thought, would encourage bowlers to attack, as well as reduce the amount of time consumed before the second innings got underway.<\/li>\n Lester also wanted to eliminate the traditional coin toss before play. Choice of whether to bat or bowl first would be the prerogative of the visiting team \u2013 to prevent pitch preparation to suit the strengths of the home team. And he would give the team leading on first innings the choice of batting or bowling next.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nTo Conclude on the Two Limits Placed on Number of Overs in CTY CHAMP Matches<\/strong><\/p>\nBoth the 1966 and 1974-81 limits placed on first innings in CTY CHAMP matches had beneficial effects and well as some drawbacks. It demonstrated that trade-offs are, inevitably, involved in such attempted reforms, and reinforce the point that no measures aimed at injecting more life into these county matches were going to be a perfect solution.<\/p>\n
The search for an ideal solution has to be viewed in relation to the stated aims. This was illustrated in November 1966 when the Advisory County Cricket Committee \u2013 in considering possible reforms for county cricket \u2013 specified the principal objectives to be as follows:<\/p>\n
\nTo produce the highest possible standard of play.<\/li>\n To provide a form of entertainment that will appeal to spectators and be available when the majority are available to attend.<\/li>\n To improve the financial position of all counties, and particularly those that are currently in difficulties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nSubsequently\u2026to Most Recent Times<\/strong><\/p>\nThe English County Championship subsequently evolved to be in a relatively good place, especially in season 2019 \u2013 just before Covid struck \u2013 producing many interesting and highly enjoyable matches. Indeed, much \u201cthrilling excitement\u201d was to be had. But the Championship befell considerably worse than Covid in 2021 with the introduction of The Hundred (domestic) competition, <\/em>and it has been in a veritable pickle ever since!<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"James Nixon | 2:08am BST 10 May 2026 The time is now ripe to engage with the sceptics. Not only those of the Cricket Web forum back in mid-August last year in relation to a proposal that I had posted, but also those who I label Test match \u201cdoomsters\u201d.\u00a0 There is a hiatus with England\u2019s […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":242637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"tdm_status":"","tdm_grid_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[6803],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-242636","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-cricket"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242636","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=242636"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/242636\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/242637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=242636"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=242636"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sports.runfyers.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=242636"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}