If the first super over is tied there should be a second one that is built on the principles of armageddon in chess. My suggestion is team A bats 6 deliveries. Team B only gets to bat 5 deliveries but wins if there is a tie.
ICC Cricket World Cup 2019
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
What if team a scores 6 6s?
Yes the risk is there with the overthrows, no? I'm just taking about specific situation of hitting the batsman.
Why would teams throw at stumps if ball is dead?
I don't think there is an issue with super over. Its a fine way to judge winners and losers when there is a tie. But because there was a tie even in superovers it is creating a lot of debate, but then if the rule stated wickets would determine who the winners were then also this debate would have existed. Boundary counts is fine unless something really good is thought of. Teams should be asked to play attacking brand of cricket , again NZ cricket was fine but they played too safe while batting whereas England batters played a better brand of cricket overall.
What would have even more controversial is if Eng won by 1 boundary count and that boundary was the overthrow deflected of Stokes.
What would have even more controversial is if Eng won by 1 boundary count and that boundary was the overthrow deflected of Stokes.
Why is scoring off one ball more attacking than scoring off 3/4 balls?I don't think there is an issue with super over. Its a fine way to judge winners and losers when there is a tie. But because there was a tie even in superovers it is creating a lot of debate, but then if the rule stated wickets would determine who the winners were then also this debate would have existed. Boundary counts is fine unless something really good is thought of. Teams should be asked to play attacking brand of cricket , again NZ cricket was fine but they played too safe while batting whereas England batters played a better brand of cricket overall.
What would have even more controversial is if Eng won by 1 boundary count and that boundary was the overthrow deflected of Stokes.
Then you deserve to lose anyway. The extra ball wouldn't have helped.
England had 170+ dot balls vs NZ's 160 odd. If anything NZ played the most attacking and proactive brand on the day.I don't think there is an issue with super over. Its a fine way to judge winners and losers when there is a tie. But because there was a tie even in superovers it is creating a lot of debate, but then if the rule stated wickets would determine who the winners were then also this debate would have existed. Boundary counts is fine unless something really good is thought of. Teams should be asked to play attacking brand of cricket , again NZ cricket was fine but they played too safe while batting whereas England batters played a better brand of cricket overall.
What would have even more controversial is if Eng won by 1 boundary count and that boundary was the overthrow deflected of Stokes.
Because the ball travels more when you hit a four or a six Duh..
No, they did not.
Thats why I said the boundary count rules will always be debatable, much similar to number of wickets. Had it been judged on number of wickets, england would have felt hard done. But given the choice I would actually have wickets as the barometer. One team scored 241 losing 8 wickets and the other scored 241 losing all their wickets. But rules were set forth before hand so what is done is done.
If that's true then that is an astounding stat, making the boundary rule even more flawed.
Well, both teams ended up with the same runs scored at the end of 50 overs and if one team hit more boundaries, they should end up with more dot balls yes?
See, that's a matter of opinion. Batting coaches will say it's better scoring four singles and disrupting the fielding side's flow than a boundary followed by three dot balls.
Point isn't that they should use dot balls as tiebreaker instead. Point is that boundaries is a rubbish tiebreaker.
I'm right because I can't be wrong and you know it
Absolutely and that's why I said the boundary count rules is weird and flawed. Anyways ICC has to have a better fix. Number of wickets lost could a better way to determine but even that would be debatable. One thing they can do is just say to the chasing team you have to score one run more than the other team to win the match or if you score equal runs then you should lose less wickets than the team batting first. But say if both teams score 240-5 then you can have the super over to decide the winner and if that also ties then boundary counts. Atleast that way it will be fair on bowlers too as their efforts do not become void.
Not necessary
Take an eg -
Team A scores 10 runs as follows:
4,2,1,1,1,1
Whereas Team B scores 10 runs as follows:
2,2,2,2,0,2
Scores are tied and the team hitting a boundary doesn't have a single dot ball.
But say Team A scores 10 runs losing a wicket 4,2,2,1,1,W
And team B scores 10 runs like you mentioned 2,2,2,2,0,2
Won't it be fair to say Team B performed better as they took one wicket too.
In the end every possible system to break a tie in a tiebreaker is going to be absurd . Having unlimited super overs isn't as simple as penalties because it took like half an hour to bowl those 2 overs . The boundaries rule came up because the ICC took the superover from t20's where boundaries always are massive.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0006njl The Tuffers and Vaughan Cricket Show
I have not posted in so long and yet you get trigged so easily.
I guess that's a compliment of sort. Glad to know I make a difference to you. Thanks!
Last edited:
Yes. In the 80s there were tournaments where tired matches were decided in favor of the team that has lost fewer wickets.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I can't even imagine what would have happened if India was the losing team rather than NZ
Kohli would’ve exploded, BCCI would’ve been on ICC’s ass and possibly nuclear war
Similarly I couldn't even imagine what would have happened if England lost on boundary counts. Imagine the english media then. Thing is it would have always created controversy. Nothing surprising there. Again no one is taking anything away from ENgland, they are just questioning the rules.
Also, sharing a world cup trophy is a stupid idea.
Kohli would have gone crazy, but for that matter any captain whose name is not Williamson would have gone crazy.
There would be grumbles for sure but I suspect the Indian media would be less sympathetic and possibly calling England chokers.
Like I said I have no issues with New Zealnders having a moan though, it’s tough to get over.
Talk of sharing the trophy is ridiculous honestly, does anyone really want to see a tournament last weeks after 4 years of waiting just to see 2 teams split it?
Boundaries is a stupid way to decide it though, you can only assume they never in a million years thought it’d actually come down to it.
Boundaries is a stupid way to decide it though, you can only assume they never in a million years thought it’d actually come down to it.
Exactly what I thought. The overthrow then losing on boundaries is a sickening way to lose a WC final
Maybe, maybe not. Again many english supporters would feel that because ENgland won the trophy people are overreacting but I feel it has very little to do with that. Main reasons for such a continuous talk is:
Never in cricketing history has such thing happened and that to in finals
ICC need to look into their rules
NZ were the team that lost. Universally loved.
Countback from the last ball - Whoever scored the last boundary wins?
Nah you know that’s true that the Indian media would be less sympathetic. But probably because of what you said that they are a universally loved team. But that’s not a consistent viewpoint.
Nothing like that has happened in the final, but it did in the semi final in 99. Should head to head have been the decider instead? I thought that was worse than the boundary rule. But that seems to have people worked up more.
Last edited:
Wickets lost are massive factor in D/L method so why not in a tie situation?
Will there be super overs in all tied ODIs from now on?
It’s limited over cricket though they’re there to use to maximise your score, not for having in hand at the end of the game to say “we hit 240-6” when you could have been more aggressive and scored another 20 at the end. A bit more adventure by NZ in the last over and this may never have happened in the first place.
I hate DL too honestly but there you go.
I think the English media would have responded stoically and accepted the result. You forgot that UK cricket fans are very different to football fans. And there is a deep respect for rules and tradition of the game.
Maybe a few journalists would cry foul to gain clicks, but the serious cricket people like Vic Marks or Jonathan Agnew would have responded with acceptance, Im sure of that.
Yes that is why I said maybe or maybe not. But I doubt British media would have cared a bit had India lost the WC to NZ like this. But had they won like this british media led by your Vaughan's, Hussain, Piers Morgan would have gone crazy.
The truth is England, Australia and India in cricket are not universally loved so no matter which team won in such a fashion others would have questioned the rules and over exaggerated the issue. England fans right now won't feel much issue with this rules and rightly so as your team won, but had it you been in receiving end it would have generated similar reaction.
They are either trolls or cnuts of the highest order.
I say just restart from the semis
There is absolutely nothing wrong in having sympathy for New Zealand, it is a brutal way to lose any game let alone a WC final . Having said that don't make it seem like they were robbed or England stole it in any way . The idea should be to discuss that this is probably not the best rule and maybe the ICC should consider changing it for future but saying rubbish like how the better team lost and trophy should be shared now is just embarrassing and that is what some of these journalists are doing
I really wish it was India we beat on boundaries and not NZ. Would've been even more satisfying watching the meltdown in this thread.