• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

IndikaJ

IndikaJ

Cricket Spectator
Lillian Thomson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nice to know that people are thinking about hockey style penalty shootouts :) Not sure why anyone would talk about taking penalties before the game. Maybe to take the pressure off
 
IndikaJ

IndikaJ

Cricket Spectator
***** said:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed with you. None of the methods are perfect. However, super over is clearly the best out of the current alternatives.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
srbhkshk said:
I like this method better than anything else that has been suggested.
Click to expand...
Red Hill said:
Yep, makes a lot more sense than anything that actually happened.
Click to expand...
It makes sense because winning the toss is supposed to be an advantage, so if you lost the toss you're starting the game from behind. If you come from behind to tie the game, you should be declared the winner.

Yea I think I'm gonna stick with this as my preferred method for now. Makes more sense than a super over.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It's moronic idea deciding the match on the flip of a coin. The way it was actually decided is several orders of magnitude better.

Win-to-loss ratio for teams winning the toss was exactly 1:1 at the World Cup fyi.
 
IndikaJ

IndikaJ

Cricket Spectator
***** said:
It makes sense because winning the toss is supposed to be an advantage, so if you lost the toss you're starting the game from behind. If you come from behind to tie the game, you should be declared the winner.

Yea I think I'm gonna stick with this as my preferred method for now. Makes more sense than a super over.
Click to expand...
Makes sense in home conditions...what if the conditions are neutral, like a world cup?
 
CricAddict

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
***** said:
It makes sense because winning the toss is supposed to be an advantage, so if you lost the toss you're starting the game from behind. If you come from behind to tie the game, you should be declared the winner.

Yea I think I'm gonna stick with this as my preferred method for now. Makes more sense than a super over.
Click to expand...
It totally doesn't make sense if ODI cricket changes to a scenario where one team has to win while the other team starts the match knowing that it doesn't have to win the match to win the game.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
CricAddict said:
It totally doesn't make sense if ODI cricket changes to a scenario where one team has to win while the other team starts the match knowing that it doesn't have to win the match to win the game.
Click to expand...
why not

If you win the toss and choose to defend a score, then actually defend it. if the other team levels with you, you've lost.

If you win the toss and choose to chase a score, then actually chase it. if you can only draw level, then you've lost.

I quite like the dynamics this can create. And this way your performance during the game itself determines who the actual winner of the game is. Not some arbitrary measurement or something completely unrelated.

A super-over and super-over shoot outs are pretty good for T20 cricket IMO.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
***** said:
why not

If you win the toss and choose to defend a score, then actually defend it. if the other team levels with you, you've lost.

If you win the toss and choose to chase a score, then actually chase it. if you can only draw level, then you've lost.

I quite like the dynamics this can create. And this way your performance during the game itself determines who the actual winner of the game is. Not some arbitrary measurement or something completely unrelated.

A super-over and super-over shoot outs are pretty good for T20 cricket IMO.
Click to expand...
Nothing is more arbitrary than a flip of the coin. You can easily flip those statements around. If you didn't bat well enough to pass the total, you won. If you bowled so poorly you couldn't defend your total, you won. Deciding it on the flip of the coin actually means that no aspect of the in match performance mattered at all, completely contrary to what you say. The category of a tie exists for a reason (neither team was good/bad enough to win/lose) and breaking it should not depend on something so arbitrary as a flip of a coin. Would you break a tie in a tennis match by automatically giving it to the player who received first?
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
I mean if you're going to have a tiebreaker, why not the toss of a coin? it's not like any other method is significantly better. Neither team was good/bad enough to win/lose, and so there is no way to fairly pick who the better side on the day was.

All cricket games are filled with luck. It's moments of luck that often decides who wins or loses. So why not let the very first moment of luck be what decides the whole game? Sounds rather poetic to me.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Win should be given to the side that didn't have an extra run given to them by an umpire that didn't properly know the rules for overthrows IMO
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
***** said:
I mean if you're going to have a tiebreaker, why not the toss of a coin? it's not like any other method is significantly better. Neither team was good/bad enough to win/lose, and so there is no way to fairly pick who the better side on the day was.

All cricket games are filled with luck. It's moments of luck that often decides who wins or loses. So why not let the very first moment of luck be what decides the whole game? Sounds rather poetic to me.
Click to expand...
Poetry is not a very good way of deciding a match. As flawed as the boundary count back is, it at least is trying to work with some sort of performance measure. The idea of repeating super overs is very much like how it works in tennis, where you play points and games until you have a winner, or you could have something like a penalty shootout in football, which was the idea behind the bowl out. All of those are performance based. Your idea is based only in luck, we're talking about a sport here, not a form of gambling. Choose something skill / performance based.
 
Lillian Thomson

Lillian Thomson

Hall of Fame Member
In future if the World Cup Final ends in a tie the trophy should be awarded to England irrespective of who’s in the Final.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top