How to resolve ties in cricket matches in future world cups?

[IndikaJ]

The entire reason a super over doesn't work is it is not reflective of the competition. The boundary thing exacerbated that even more so. 50 over cricket is not only about power hitting, and that is an unfair way to decide a winner of a long (6week) 50 over comp, and cannot be viewed the same as extra time is in other sports.

And rewarding the performances in group stages will only enhance the competition by making "dead rubbers" potentially be non "dead rubbers". As for washouts, you have to accept them and a long comp should ensure that the better teams sort themselves out on the league table.

I thought the super over/boundary thing was one of the biggest farces I have seen in international cricket. Whoever designed it should be ashamed. As for the comparisons with other sports, playing short periods of extra time, as might be done in rugby or AFL, is in no way similar to a super over at the end of a 50 over cricket match. Extra time just involves playing the same game, exactly, for longer. A super over is nothing like a 50 over match.

Great points. I think we all can agree just one over is not enough. Even extra time in soccer include 33% of the normal game (30mins) which is adequate time for both teams to have a fair opportunity. Super over might be too short for ODI. However, I still feel the ranking on the group stages is not ideal if their a final. Then why play a final just play a league only like the test championship.

 

[IndikaJ]

Very important point. It makes the closing stages of the group matches more exciting knowing that the rankings really matter in case the finals are rain-affected. Those matches will actually matter and have some real meaning.

If rain the rain intervenes finals should be share IMO. If the previous results going to be counted I don't see a point of having semifinals and finals

 

[aussie tragic]

Super overs go against the basic rules of ODI cricket.

1. A batsman should only bat once
2. A bowler only gets 10 overs

So if a super over is played it should be batted by not out batsman only and bowled by bowlers who have not bowled their 10 overs. Then it might be a fair continuance of the game situation

 

[sledger]

Should just keep the current approach. It's fair and clear.

 

[andruid]

Fine both teams and cancel the whole game


I would have thought the number of wickets lost would have been stronger tiebreaker than boundaries scored.

 

[sledger]

Fine both teams and cancel the whole game


I would have thought the number of wickets lost would have been stronger tiebreaker than boundaries scored.

I guess using "more boundaries" as the tie breaker is intended to encourage more attacking batting, thus creating more of a spectacle for the audience.

Having "fewer wickets lost" as a tie-breaker, conversely, might encourage negative batting I guess.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I guess using "more boundaries" as the tie breaker is intended to encourage more attacking batting, thus creating more of a spectacle for the audience.

Having "fewer wickets lost" as a tie-breaker, conversely, might encourage negative batting I guess.

That's entirely theoretical though because realistically no one's batting, or how they play the game in general, is going to be affected by it.

 

[sledger]

Yes.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Bowl off

 

[Burner]

I guess using "more boundaries" as the tie breaker is intended to encourage more attacking batting, thus creating more of a spectacle for the audience.

Having "fewer wickets lost" as a tie-breaker, conversely, might encourage negative batting I guess.

IMO more boundaries is a stupid rule because all it does is favour a team with a particular playstyle.

More wickets I guess I could get behind more because at least it inherently means that one team was better. I can agree with 300/5 being better than 300/7. You can argue that you only lost wickets because you were slogging at the end for quick runs, but I'd say if you lost more wickets, that can be attributed to the other team being better at their death bowling. ie they are better.

 

[IndikaJ]

IMO more boundaries is a stupid rule because all it does is favour a team with a particular playstyle.

More wickets I guess I could get behind more because at least it inherently means that one team was better. I can agree with 300/5 being better than 300/7. You can argue that you only lost wickets because you were slogging at the end for quick runs, but I'd say if you lost more wickets, that can be attributed to the other team being better at their death bowling. ie they are better.

I think looking at a one statistic or an attribute of the game afterwards is not fair. England lost 2 wickets in the last two balls trying to get to 242. if they were happy with 241 they would've not lost those wickets. Therefore, I think if we need to find a winner we should stop the previous game at that point and start it fresh with a tiebreaker.

https://medium.com/@indikajayasinghe85/how-to-resolve-ties-in-cricket-matches-in-future-world-cups-c7323f4ff961

 

[IndikaJ]

Bowl off

Why should a competition between bat and ball should be decided based on the accuracy of bowling? That's why bowl-out failed

 

[IndikaJ]

Super overs go against the basic rules of ODI cricket.

1. A batsman should only bat once
2. A bowler only gets 10 overs

So if a super over is played it should be batted by not out batsman only and bowled by bowlers who have not bowled their 10 overs. Then it might be a fair continuance of the game situation

When the normal game ends in a tie. That's it. Whatever, tie-breaker should start fresh with both teams having a equal chance of winning IMO

 

[IndikaJ]

I guess using "more boundaries" as the tie breaker is intended to encourage more attacking batting, thus creating more of a spectacle for the audience.

Having "fewer wickets lost" as a tie-breaker, conversely, might encourage negative batting I guess.

1s, 2s and 3s can come off attacking batting. so I don't think looking at a single statistic is fair. Its like letting the person with most aces winning a tennis match.

https://medium.com/@indikajayasinghe85/how-to-resolve-ties-in-cricket-matches-in-future-world-cups-c7323f4ff961

 

[Daemon]

That's entirely theoretical though because realistically no one's batting, or how they play the game in general, is going to be affected by it.

Exactly why the "but teh both knew the rulez" brigade needs an uppercut

 

[sledger]

Exactly why the "but teh both knew the rulez" brigade needs an uppercut

40 Nixons for being wrong

 

[Daemon]

40 Nixons for being wrong

Noted, will amend behaviour and posting accordingly.

 

[cnerd123]

Exactly why the "but teh both knew the rulez" brigade needs an uppercut

was never used to defend the quality of the tiebreaker, just to defend the fairness of the result.


honestly I haven't seen any tiebreaker suggestion yet that is any less weird or arbitrary than a superover + boundaries hit. Unlimited superovers, sudden death style, probably the best suggestion so far. But even that's not great. A series of 1-over shoot outs to determine the winner of a 50 over game?

A penalty shootout isn't a great way to decide the winner of a football match either, but it's accepted because it's been the norm and everyone has gotten used to it. I guess we all just need time to adjust to the super-over.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

A penalty shootout isn't a great way to decide the winner of a football match either, but it's accepted because it's been the norm and everyone has gotten used to it.

I wouldn't say it's accepted. Every time England go out of a major tournament on penalties there's a three hour debate on talksport about better alternatives. Those guaranteed to be suggested are number of corners, a dribbling from the half way line shoot out and taking the penalties before the match just in case.

At least no one has yet suggested playing a super over half an hour before the match just in case.

 

[Daemon]

was never used to defend the quality of the tiebreaker, just to defend the fairness of the result.


honestly I haven't seen any tiebreaker suggestion yet that is any less weird or arbitrary than a superover + boundaries hit. Unlimited superovers, sudden death style, probably the best suggestion so far. But even that's not great. A series of 1-over shoot outs to determine the winner of a 50 over game?

A penalty shootout isn't a great way to decide the winner of a football match either, but it's accepted because it's been the norm and everyone has gotten used to it. I guess we all just need time to adjust to the super-over.

I mean, short of replaying the entire game every other measure will be arbitrary, but that doesn't mean we can't strive for a better system.

It's like saying the DRS isn't 100% accurate so we should stick to umps who are far less accurate.

Super overs are fine though imo. They're fun and great entertainment which is half the job done. The tiebreaker for the super over was just dumb though.