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

[srbhkshk]

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.

I checked this and it seems like there is no difference between the probability of winning a game whether you win or lose the toss. It's very weird, I was definitely expecting a small difference.

 

[Red]

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.

It's not only based on "luck", if you concede that winning the toss gives that team an advantage, be it ever so slight, to decide the course of the match.

If winning the toss isn't worth at least 1 run, then you might as well let whatever team is alphabetically first bat first.

 

[IndikaJ]

It's not only based on "luck", if you concede that winning the toss gives that team an advantage, be it ever so slight, to decide the course of the match.

If winning the toss isn't worth at least 1 run, then you might as well let whatever team is alphabetically first bat first.

Interesting way of thinking!

 

[Starfighter]

It's not only based on "luck", if you concede that winning the toss gives that team an advantage, be it ever so slight, to decide the course of the match.

If winning the toss isn't worth at least 1 run, then you might as well let whatever team is alphabetically first bat first.

The amount the the toss is worth is not fixed. some days it may be worth a lot but other days it will be worth nothing at all, and some days the winner will make the wrong decision.

I checked this and it seems like there is no difference between the probability of winning a game whether you win or lose the toss. It's very weird, I was definitely expecting a small difference.

 

[Red]

I checked this and it seems like there is no difference between the probability of winning a game whether you win or lose the toss. It's very weird, I was definitely expecting a small difference.

The data is interesting but skewed by the fact that some teams are better than others. Winning the toss doesn't necessarily mean winning the game, it means getting an advantage before the match starts.

The amount the the toss is worth is not fixed. some days it may be worth a lot but other days it will be worth nothing at all, and some days the winner will make the wrong decision.

If we asked every international ODI captain and every List A captain "Would you prefer to win the toss in every game, or lose the toss in every game you captain?", as a survey, what do think their response would be?

 

[Starfighter]

The data is interesting but skewed by the fact that some teams are better than others. Winning the toss doesn't necessarily mean winning the game, it means getting an advantage before the match starts.

So are you saying that the better team loses the toss more often? That's what would be required to produce the observed result if it is as significant as you claim.

If we asked every international ODI captain and every List A captain "Would you prefer to win the toss in every game, or lose the toss in every game you captain?", as a survey, what do think their response would be?

Teams that use night-watchmen score less, and batsmen are no more likely to get out in 'a short difficult period just before the close of play' - the genesis of many declarations - than any other time of the day. Doesn't stop these being all used. It may very well be that in limited overs cricket the value of the toss is not as significant as people like to believe.

 

[srbhkshk]

The data is interesting but skewed by the fact that some teams are better than others. Winning the toss doesn't necessarily mean winning the game, it means getting an advantage before the match starts.

But it holds even at a team level, Australia for instance (In general the strongest team overall for the largest period of time) have a W/L of 1.645 when winning the toss and 1.883 when losing the toss.