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

[IndikaJ]

Are you satisfied with the way ICC cricket world cup final ended couple of weeks back?

If not, how can Cricket learn from other major sports like soccer, rugby, basketball, hockey and baseball to come up with a better approach in future?

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

I'm a amateur sports analytics writer. I wrote this piece about resolving ties in future world cup. I hope I can get some good feedback from the cricket experts and diehard fans in this forum.

Let's discuss the about an approach ICC can use in the future world cups, avoiding controversy like in 2019?

 

[Red]

Neither the super over or the boundary count should ever be used again, it was absurd. Neither are reflections of the competition.

Do one of the following for a far fairer result.

- Replay the entire game a day later
- Award the cup to both teams, there is no problem with a tie
- Award the cup to the team highest on the ladder after the group stages

 

[IndikaJ]

Neither the super over or the boundary count should ever be used again, it was absurd. Neither are reflections of the competition.

Do one of the following for a far fairer result.

- Replay the entire game a day later
- Award the cup to both teams, there is no problem with a tie
- Award the cup to the team highest on the ladder after the group stages

Thanks Red Hill. Appreciate you taking time to read the article. I agree with you on couple of things.

Replay would be a fair outcome. However, I don't know easy would it be to draw the crowds on a new day. Specially if the day is a working day. Playing a world cup final with empty stands would be a tragedy.
I'm ok with sharing the trophy is the tie breaker method fails. However, in ODIs and T20Is where ties are possible, there should be a tried and tested method of resolving ties in my opinion.
Awarding the cup to the best team in the preliminary rounds is not an ideal format. When teams reached the finals those results are irrelevant. Teams could've rotated the squads in dead rubbers and washouts can impact a teams chances.

Therefore, I think a super over concept works. However, if we can play 2.5 or 5 overs that might give a more validity to ODIs.

Thanks again for your thoughts man.

 

[TheJediBrah]

When teams reached the finals those results are irrelevant.

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with rewarding a team that did better in the preliminary rounds.

 

[CricAddict]

Thanks Red Hill. Appreciate you taking time to read the article. I agree with you on couple of things.

Replay would be a fair outcome. However, I don't know easy would it be to draw the crowds on a new day. Specially if the day is a working day. Playing a world cup final with empty stands would be a tragedy.
I'm ok with sharing the trophy is the tie breaker method fails. However, in ODIs and T20Is where ties are possible, there should be a tried and tested method of resolving ties in my opinion.
Awarding the cup to the best team in the preliminary rounds is not an ideal format. When teams reached the finals those results are irrelevant. Teams could've rotated the squads in dead rubbers and washouts can impact a teams chances.

Therefore, I think a super over concept works. However, if we can play 2.5 or 5 overs that might give a more validity to ODIs.

Thanks again for your thoughts man.

Hi Indika, welcome to the forum!

I had proposed a similar idea too post the World Cup final. Have multiple super overs with different batsmen and bowlers each time. A maximum of 5 can be done with 10 different batsmen and 5 different bowlers.

 

[IndikaJ]

I disagree. There's nothing wrong with rewarded a team who did better in the preliminary rounds.

That would be the ideal result on a league format like English premier league. The problem is if a team qualifies to knockout rounds early, they tend to experiment with the squads and give rest to key players knowing that they can afford a loss. Also, some teams peak at the end (e.g., Pakistan in 1992 and Australia in 1999) while some teams fade at the end (South Africa in most cases), ideally team that is in the top form should win the world cup.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for your thoughts

 

[TheJediBrah]

Hi Indika, welcome to the forum!

I had proposed a similar idea too post the World Cup final. Have multiple super overs with different batsmen and bowlers each time. A maximum of 5 can be done with 10 different batsmen and 5 different bowlers.

You're allowed to lose a wicket though so it could be up to 15 batsmen for 5 super overs

 

[aussie tragic]

A tie is a valid result to me and both teams then deserve to 'win' by sharing the result. This super over crap is not reflective of how a side played and boundary count is ridiculous as runs scored were the same (and what would have happened if rain shortened one teams innings?). I agree that playing again the next day would be a nightmare for everyone (players, officials, tv, fans, ground staff, etc.).

 

[IndikaJ]

Hi Indika, welcome to the forum!

I had proposed a similar idea too post the World Cup final. Have multiple super overs with different batsmen and bowlers each time. A maximum of 5 can be done with 10 different batsmen and 5 different bowlers.

Thanks CricAddict. Happy to be here!

Love to read you stuff. I agree! single super over might be be two short as 2 overs solving a tie of a 100 over game is bit unfair. As you suggested, if we can go for a five over concept it would be ideal as we are covering 10% of the normal playing time.

 

[aussie tragic]

The problem is if a team qualifies to knockout rounds early, they tend to experiment with the squads and give rest to key players knowing that they can afford a loss.

Did they though, I'm pretty sure each team played their strongest team throughout the WC this year.

 

[IndikaJ]

A tie is a valid result to me and both teams then deserve to 'win' by sharing the result. This super over crap is not reflective of how a side played and boundary count is ridiculous as runs scored were the same (and what would have happened if rain shortened one teams innings?). I agree that playing again the next day would be a nightmare for everyone (players, officials, tv, fans, ground staff, etc.).

Yes. Sharing works. I hated to see New Zealand going away without a trophy. However, do you remember the 2001 ICC champions trophy where the trophy was shared between India and Sri Lanka because of multiple washouts. In both those countries that result is given lower precedence to their other other major trophy wins. Hence, I don't blame ICC for trying to break the tie.

 

[aussie tragic]

I admit to never watching champions trophy, however being shared because of washed out matches is hardly the same as an exciting tie lasting the full 50 overs each...reinforces that every run is important

 

[GIMH]

A shared trophy means nobody wins IMO. I certainly wouldn’t feel we’d ‘won’ the World Cup and I am sure NZ fans would say the same.

Super over is fine with me, but go sudden death if that is tied.

 

[IndikaJ]

I admit to never watching champions trophy, however being shared because of washed out matches is hardly the same as an exciting tie lasting the full 50 overs each...reinforces that every run is important

Agreed on that point. However, how would you sort out a tie in a semi final? I believe the 2003 result was unfair from a South African view point. Therefore, I do believe there is a need to have a tie-breaking format which provides both tied teams with an equal chance of winning.

 

[IndikaJ]

A shared trophy means nobody wins IMO. I certainly wouldn’t feel we’d ‘won’ the World Cup and I am sure NZ fans would say the same.

Super over is fine with me, but go sudden death if that is tied.

Basically, another Super Over! I hate the use of the irrelevant statistic like the boundary count!

 

[GIMH]

It’s a good point actually. If you’re sharing the trophy you’re saying whatever tie break was in use for earlier knockouts is no longer good enough. Terrible for the competition’s integrity.

 

[IndikaJ]

It’s a good point actually. If you’re sharing the trophy you’re saying whatever tie break was in use for earlier knockouts is no longer good enough. Terrible for the competition’s integrity.

Agreed. Cricket needs to find a good tie breaking method. No one has bothered much as their are very limited ties in ODIs. Even this discussion is happening because of the 2019 final.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I certainly wouldn’t feel we’d ‘won’ the World Cup and I am sure NZ fans would say the same.

Pretty much where we're at now anyway tbh

Yes. Sharing works. I hated to see New Zealand going away without a trophy. However, do you remember the 2001 ICC champions trophy where the trophy was shared between India and Sri Lanka because of multiple washouts. In both those countries that result is given lower precedence to their other other major trophy wins. Hence, I don't blame ICC for trying to break the tie.

Yeah but no one really cares about or remembers Champions trophy results. It was 2002 when it was rained out. Sri Lankan weather, they're like the England of the subcontinent.

 

[Red]

Thanks Red Hill. Appreciate you taking time to read the article. I agree with you on couple of things.

Replay would be a fair outcome. However, I don't know easy would it be to draw the crowds on a new day. Specially if the day is a working day. Playing a world cup final with empty stands would be a tragedy.
I'm ok with sharing the trophy is the tie breaker method fails. However, in ODIs and T20Is where ties are possible, there should be a tried and tested method of resolving ties in my opinion.
Awarding the cup to the best team in the preliminary rounds is not an ideal format. When teams reached the finals those results are irrelevant. Teams could've rotated the squads in dead rubbers and washouts can impact a teams chances.

Therefore, I think a super over concept works. However, if we can play 2.5 or 5 overs that might give a more validity to ODIs.

Thanks again for your thoughts man.

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.

 

[TheJediBrah]

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.

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.