England were crowned World Champions in a dramatic final at Lord’s. This is the first time that the England men’s team have won the 50-overs World Cup.
With both 50-overs contest and super over tied; it was tally of boundaries that ultimately decided the winners. England, courtesy of hitting more boundaries in 51-overs (50 allotted overs plus super over) than New Zealand, were declared winners.
Many fans wondered if this is the right manner to decide the World Cup final. Eyebrows were raised over rules. Many thought the Kiwis were hard done by.
Well, according to established rules England were clearly deserving winners. The rules are perhaps a bit unfair but according to them – which everyone was aware of at the start of the tournament and has been in existence for a while – England deservedly lifted the trophy.
However, there are still better ways to decide a tied super over than one we currently have. ICC may decide to alter the rules in the future. In this article, we will look at three better alternatives which should have decided the winners.
#1 Bowl-out
If a super over is tied, then have a bowl-out, just like one we used to have before the concept of super over came into existence.
The team that hit stumps more over the course of six deliveries will be declared winners. This method was famously used when India defeated Pakistan in group stages of 2007 T20I World Cup.
#2 Another super over
Or as Mohammad Kaif tweeted have “continuous super overs until a result” is decided. If 102-overs of cricket couldn’t separate two sides, what harm is it in having another one-over decider?
Runs are runs – whether scored in boundaries or not. This will ensure that the team that has scored more runs (rather than more boundaries) will be declared winners.
#3 Just end the match there
If a super over is tied, then perhaps both teams are equally good and both equally deserve to win. Declare it as a tie and allow the trophy to be shared.
sheek
Roar Guru
OffCycling, Oh, for heavens sake, tests matches are not knock-outs. Ties/draws are very acceptable outside of knockouts. Losing fewer wickets is say, losing 5-250 to win a match, be it test, provincial, or one-day. Obviously, in knock-out stages, only one team can progress, or be finally declared winner, so means of separating teams is required throughout knock-outs. It's the same in the footy codes. Except NRL, whereby to appease TV broadcasters & corporate betting bookies, all home & away games are also subject to their stupendously silly 'golden point' rule.
OffCycling
Guest
Throughout the history of cricket the next thing has been to win by losing fewer wickets? Did I miss the bit in the tied test of 1986 where Australia won by only losing 12 wickets (by declaring twice) to India's 20? In tests runs have always been the sole means by which the winner has been determined- wickets are a means of restricting runs (by stopping an innings when a team is bowled out) rather than a secondary means of victory. One day games were then created with an additional way of restricting runs: by stopping the innings after a certain number of overs as well as when ten wickets had fallen. The objective is to score more runs than the opposition and no wickets down or all out that doesn't change. I'd agree the pool game is an unsatisfactory measure (mainly because that game was pretty much won at the toss) but wickets is not the answer.
sheek
Roar Guru
Prateek, I don’t like shared winners, so I don’t mind there being a system of separating teams in the case of a tie in a knock-out game. I was one who didn’t know the rules of a tie in a world cup. In my younger days, I would have been all over this sort of thing. But in my older days, I’m not as engaged as I used to be. Nevertheless, I found the conclusion to this wonderful match unsatisfactory, despite the fact it was enthralling. The whole idea of a super over is apparently to appease TV broadcasters. It’s not necessarily the best thought out tie-breaker. Then the idea of a boundary count back is lazy governance from an administration (ICC) that couldn’t be bothered thinking things through better. Sure, you can have these things, but I would have them further down the list. NZ should have won on the basis of losing fewer wickets for the same number of runs: 8-241 to 10-241. Throughout the history of cricket, running more than 150 years, the primary aim has always been to score more runs than your opponent, irrespective of how many innings involved, or limitation on number of overs bowled. The next thing is to win by losing fewer wickets, specifically when chasing a winning score. That’s how it’s always been. So that’s the first thing, NZ should have been declared winners because they lost two fewer wickets. The next thing might be the number of balls faced in scoring the runs. Back in 1999, Australia & South Africa both scored 10-213. But Australia scored its runs off two fewer balls – 49.2 to 49.4. Australia actually advanced because they had beaten South Africa in their previous encounter, but I don’t know if this is satisfactory. Previous encounters in any world cup only tell us how teams were faring at that particular point. But things are always different at the “business’ end. Had both teams (England & NZ) lost the same number of wickets, then England would have been declared winners for winning the pool match. But I find this unsatisfactory. However, my first tie-breaker would simply have been losing fewer wickets for the same score. If things were still level, then have 5 super overs each, not one. Each over would be bowled by a different bowler, & the tactics of who bowled each over in sequence would be important. If after 5 more overs each, the scores were still tied, then wickets lost would still apply. If things are still still even, then they go to a single super over. If after all that, things are still even, then you bring in other things like boundary count backs. But that should be well down the list. So in summary, when scores are tied, the first tie-breaker should be which team lost fewer wickets. That’s always been part of the primacy of cricket at all levels – firstly, to score runs & secondly, to lose fewer wickets.
Paul
Roar Guru
hi Prateek, thanks for writing about such a contentious issue. I doubt greatly your 3rd suggestion would be very palatable to many, as the aim is always to have a winner. I was going to suggest a 4th option and this is to have an additional two overs, one bowled from each end by different bowlers, but also including 2 different batsmen for the second over ( if the same two guys are still in after the 1st over). It seems reasonable to me, if bowler number one an the first two batsmen have to start again, why should the second bowler, also starting again, be faced by 2 guys with their eye in? It will be interesting to see what the ICC does with this.