England’s dramatic World Cup final win over New Zealand is rightly being praised as one of the greatest ODIs ever played.
And while the twists and turns produced agony and ecstasy of unmatched scale, many fans have since asked if England’s victory on the basis of having scored more boundaries inside the 50 overs is a fair way to decide the world champion.
As an added kicker for all Kiwi supporters, we now know that the second ‘six’ in England’s 50th over should have only been given as five runs.
Can you imagine the stink that England or Australia’s cricketing boards would have kicked up had they been in New Zealand’s shoes? And as for what the BCCI would do… it doesn’t bear thinking about.
That said, here are some ways we could separate the teams in the rare event that the game is tied that aren’t as arbitrary as a boundary countback.
1. Wickets lost inside 50 overs
In the event of a rain-reduced match, we employ the Duckworth Lewis Stern method to decide the relative strength of a team at a given position in the match.
For example, if Team A is 0/35 after 5 overs, and Team B is 3/40 after 5 overs in the same match, we say that Team A is in a stronger position and thus more likely to win, despite having slightly fewer runs than Team B.
It would seem to follow, then, that New Zealand’s 8/241 was stronger than England’s 241 all out. I’m still all for a super over, given that the objective of limited-overs cricket is to simply score more runs than your opponent in a given time frame.
But when you’re faced with a tied match and tied super over, then perhaps we should consider the economy with which those runs were acquired.
2. Wickets lost in the super over
Going back to the original 50 overs to find a result might actually be counter-intuitive. The premise of a super over is that there was nothing to separate the two teams inside the original contest, and that an additional contest is needed.
If that’s the case, then it seems logical to use the wickets lost in a super over as the next tie breaker in the event that a super over is tied.
The problem with this – and any wicket countback – is that it may discourage teams from winning the game outright. It seems less likely that Guptill would have attempted a fatal second run off the last ball of the super over if he knew that a mere single would secure a share of the trophy.
3. Previous head to head
This method is used at the FIFA World Cup when determining which side should advance from the group stage in the event that both sides finish level on points, goal difference, and goals scored.
It seems a reasonably good test of which side is superior within the tournament. There would be no fear of teams playing for a draw as you might have in a two-legged tie in football.
But in the group stages, teams might very legitimately rest superstar players in order to keep them fresh for later games, so they don’t always field a full-strength side, and thus the outcome of the contest in the group stage might not be a genuine representation of the comparative strength between the teams.
4. Tournament ladder position
If the objective of a tournament is to determine who the best team is, then why not look at which team has fared the best against all other teams?
While this would discourage teams from tanking earlier in the tournament to avoid particular finals fixtures, it doesn’t resolve the problem that sometimes no result is achieved in group stage matches, thus limiting team’s ability to gain points and climb the table.
More games were abandoned during this World Cup without a ball bowled than in all previous editions of the tournament combined. But this is already an accepted consideration in determining who progresses to the finals, so maybe it’s not that bad.
One potential way to avoid both these problems is to take a team’s average points per completed game, or their total number of wins divided by total number of completed matches. Interestingly, neither of these results would have led to a different ladder than the one that was ultimately produced.
5. Share it
The tournament by-rules state that in the event of a washout in the final – for example, poor weather on the scheduled day and the reserve day prevents a match from being completed – the two teams will be declared joint champions.
(Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images)
This is important because it shows that the ICC is not strictly wedded to the idea that there can only be one champion. If the two teams are tied after 50 overs and a super over, and maybe one more tie-breaker (my preference would be a wickets countback), then just give them a share of the trophy.
6. Best bloke
In the case of a tie, award the game to the team you’d most like to have a beer with. This rule has serious merit.
It rewards countries like New Zealand, who boast the banterous Jimmy Neesham and the bristling Lockie Ferguson, as well as the energy of West Indies, despite Chris Gayle only referring to himself in the third person.
It also punishes teams with Ben Stokes in them and satisfies every Australian’s desire to see Virat Kohli never win anything.
7. No World XI
It’s been the subject of many a meme on social media that five of England’s starting XI and seven of their total squad were born outside England.
Captain Eoin Morgan joked on Sunday through a heavy Irish accent that not only did they have “the rub of the green,” but according the Pakistani-born English spinner Adil Rashid, “Allah was definitely with [the team].”
Pace ace Jofra Archer was born in Barbados, while Ben Stokes grew up in New Zealand and Jason Roy is South African by birth. At least we know the British Empire is alive and well.
8. Fastest to correctly pronounce the umpire’s names
This is a beauty. Marais Erasmus might not be too much of a challenge, but his partner in the final – Handunnettige Deepthi Priyantha Kumar Dharmasena, also known as that bloke that pissed off Jason Roy in the semi – is bound to challenge some of England’s cockney crew.
9. Just run another super over
Simple stuff, really.
Personally, my preferred order of tie-breakers would be super over, wicket countback, best bloke, anyone but England, share it.
paulbear
Guest
That old chestnut about where players were born, rears it's head again. All the players mentioned, except Morgan and Archer (Who had other reasons for wanting to play for England) were schoolboys when they came to England like most before them and so no one had any idea if these 'Boys' would become cricketers. The players themselves have earned their living here, become the players they are because of U.K money invested in them, have all played for counties, made their lives here, bought homes here and made families. In other words they are U.K citizens - So someone please explain to me why on earth they should play for any other country than England.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Obviously CWC guidelines need to be drawn up to suit the host conditions, but this CWC could have lasted another 90 minutes on the scheduled day. That would have almost certainly achieved a result as each set of super overs would need about 15 minutes turn around each. They have a reserve day for weather. Use it.
Oscar Samios
Roar Rookie
This seems sensible, but likely difficult to administrate. At what point do we say it's "too late" in the day to start another set of super overs? 11pm? At some grounds, the lighting may be inadequate to allow cricket to be played past a certain time. It seems to me that one super over is good, two superovers permissible, but more than that a little questionable
Scotty P
Roar Rookie
You have to wonder how some of these guys in the ICC get paid as much as they do and continue to make the biggest and most basic blunders. You would think that option 9 would be the logical one to just about anyone with a brain. Obviously this doesn’t apply to the ICC, after four years of sipping tea, they still couldn’t figure it out.
James
Guest
Hell the super over should start with the other team getting to pick the batsmen and bowler.
James
Guest
Because when a game is washed out one team has definitely batted for longer and so have had more opportunities to score boundaries?
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Just keep playing sets of Super Overs (switching batting order each time) until one team scores more runs than the other, for as long as is required within the time allocated for the match (for CWC19 this was 2 days for each final). Maximum loss of 2 wickets per side (so same as now). Each of these is effectively an innings per team. If after this - i.e. likely 2 days given this tournament's scheduling - the teams have tied for runs in each of the sets of Super Overs (5 (?) on the scheduled day and 30 (?) on the reserve day, the number of wickets taken throughout the Super Overs determines the winner. Of course it would be an almost statistical impossibility for each team to keep scoring the same runs in each over for that long, so a result would clearly be reached based on runs and most likely this would happen within the first 5 sets of Super Overs - i.e. Day 1. It can't be that hard to implement a simple approach that still accords with the fundamental premise of cricket which is that the team with most runs at the completion of the allowed innings for each team, wins.
HelenMary
Roar Rookie
Totally agree with your comments. I would add however, if we go to another Super Over - The Super Duper Over - then the fielding team should pick the batsmen and and the batting team gets to pick the bowler. A race to the bottom may have been more interesting than the countback on boundaries.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Very entertaining and informative article, Oscar! I like your point that the ICC contemplate joint winners in the event of a wash-out, but it begs the obvious question why the "most boundaries" rule isn't deemed worthy when the match is washed-out. Like most things on this subject, it makes no sense. I agree with those who say we should just keep having super-overs until somebody wins. Can you imagine the rising excitement and tension? To save time, the team who bats second in the first set of super overs, bats first in the second set. In fact, rather than super-overs, I wouldn't mind a system where you start with an extra 5 overs each and, if still tied, an extra 4 overs each, and then 3 etc. As you can probably tell, when the cricket is good, too much cricket is never enough!
Bobbo7
Guest
Basically anything rather than the idiotic reason applied. It's pretty simple. Clearly the best options are do more super overs, joint winners or play the game again. The rule applied is so mindnumbingly irrelevant they might as well have done a gumboot throw.
Oscar Samios
Roar Rookie
This is a great idea. Like you say, boundary and wicket countbacks neglect the objective of 50-over cricket: to score as many runs as you can in as short a period of time as possible.
Gee
Roar Rookie
Head to Head, or a dance battle.
Rob JM
Guest
They should have gone with the least redheads rule!
Paul
Roar Guru
Two super overs, one from either end, with different bowlers and different batsmen for over 2. It seems unfair for the same batsmen to face two overs, as they have their eye in, whereas the second bowler has to come on cold. If sides can't separated, another super over with a completely different bowler and different batsmen. If more than 5 super overs are needed to separate two sides, which I seriously doubt, the team losing the least wickets across the entire game wins.
Lancey5times
Roar Rookie
Bowl off. But like a penalty shootout there would be different bowlers for each delivery. How good would it be to see Ussie knock out middle stump to win a world cup shootout 2-1 with a combined 13 misses after Eoin Morgan misses the square?
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
10. Coin flip / bat flip
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
I was surprised it came down to boundaries. I would have thought wickets lost in super over or wickets lost in the 50 overs would have been fairer. In ODIs you aren't consciously trying to score boundaries only like in T20.
JM
Guest
Perhaps the pattern could be 1: 50 overs 2: super over 3: super ball
soapit
Roar Guru
Only problem with number of wickets in the super over is is fairly likely to be tied, more so than wickets in the 50, Whatever it is I think it has to be something fairly obvious so that teams fans etc know exactly who has to do what
OffCycling
Guest
I posted this on another similar article, but my preference would be super over followed by whoever lost the toss wins the trophy. It's generally accepted that winning the toss is an advantage in cricket, so the team that won it should have the best of the batting conditions (and if they didn't then whose fault is it?). If after 50 overs they can't use those better conditions to score one more run than the opposition and can't score more runs in a super over it seems fair to give the trophy to the team that was disadvantaged from the start. This would have a key advantage of using something that happened on the day and would always give a result. It has the disadvantage (for many on this site) that England would have won. I don't really like the boundaries or wickets method as they take something that the teams were not especially concerned with during the game (a run is a run whether by boundaries or running and wickets are important in the sense that they restrict runs but that's it) and make it pivotal. (By the way DLS works on remaining resources so it's true that 35/0 after 5 has 95% of the resources remaining and so is better than 40/3 which only has 72.5% remaining. However after 50 overs no matter what the wickets remaining are there are 0% resources left, so after 50 over DLS says the number of wickets is irrelevent: 241/8 is exactly as strong as 241/10)