Super over stats

[Red]

In footy two World Cup finals have been decided on penalties, goals in them don’t count to stats either. I’m sure other sports would have similar comparisons.

What’s your preferred method?

It not counting to stats is not because it’s not akin to cricket, its neither here nor there but it certainly has zero relevance to whether it’s a good tiebreaker.

It has all the relevance as to whether it's a good tiebreaker, because the result of a competition should be decided by the actual game that has been played.

Penalty shootouts in soccer are equally stupid but understandable considering the low scoring and boring nature of the actual game.

My preferred method is that if at the end of the actual contest (a 50 over cricket match) both teams are tied, they share the cup. That's the true result of the final.

My second preferred method is that if they can't share it, they come back the next day and compete again for it, in a 50 over game.

Third is that whoever won the most matches in the group stages or ended highest on the table is awarded winner.

All these methods ensure that the world's premier 50 over cricket comp winner is decided by, you know, 50 over cricket.

 

[GIMH]

How on earth could anyone think that a system, to decide the winner of a six week premier tournament, that has nothing in common with the tournament, is perfect?

Six ball over
Two batsmen at opposite ends
Six ball over
Three stumps
Hit the ball, run before the fielder gets it back
Get it to the boundary with a bounce and it’s four
Get it to the boundary with no bounces and it’s six
Bowler can dismiss batsman by numerous methods
Most runs win

Nothing in common indeed

 

[Red]

Six ball over
Two batsmen at opposite ends
Six ball over
Three stumps
Hit the ball, run before the fielder gets it back
Get it to the boundary with a bounce and it’s four
Get it to the boundary with no bounces and it’s six
Bowler can dismiss batsman by numerous methods
Most runs win

Nothing in common indeed

You honestly think this is a legit way to decide a six week 50 over cricket tournament? I'm sure I don't have to argue that a super over has NOTHING in common with a 50 over cricket match. I know you aren't that stupid.

 

[GIMH]

It has all the relevance as to whether it's a good tiebreaker, because the result of a competition should be decided by the actual game that has been played.

Penalty shootouts in soccer are equally stupid but understandable considering the low scoring and boring nature of the actual game.

My preferred method is that if at the end of the actual contest (a 50 over cricket match) both teams are tied, they share the cup. That's the true result of the final.

My second preferred method is that if they can't share it, they come back the next day and compete again for it, in a 50 over game.

Third is that whoever won the most matches in the group stages or ended highest on the table is awarded winner.

All these methods ensure that the world's premier 50 over cricket comp winner is decided by, you know, 50 over cricket.

Football is boring lol. You will never understand the joy I experienced on the 119th minute of the League 2 play off final in May because you’ve decided low scoring equals boring. Cool story.

A super over is more like true (one day) cricket than a penalty shootout is football.

I mean don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s ideal. But sharing a World Cup would be the most unsatisfactory way to end a tournament I could imagine. At the end of it all, nobody wins. Absolutely awful. Basically two teams sharing a participation trophy.

 

[GIMH]

You honestly think this is a legit way to decide a six week 50 over cricket tournament? I'm sure I don't have to argue that a super over has NOTHING in common with a 50 over cricket match. I know you aren't that stupid.

It has plenty in common though doesn’t it? It’s just limited overs cricket on steroids

Plus surely you thought it was exciting?

 

[Red]

Football is boring lol. You will never understand the joy I experienced on the 119th minute of the League 2 play off final in May because you’ve decided low scoring equals boring. Cool story.

A super over is more like true (one day) cricket than a penalty shootout is football.

I mean don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s ideal. But sharing a World Cup would be the most unsatisfactory way to end a tournament I could imagine. At the end of it all, nobody wins. Absolutely awful. Basically two teams sharing a participation trophy.

If you have a contest with agreed rules and parameters, and at the end of the agreed contest, scores are level, there is zero issue with saying "this is the final result".

I'm not sure why anyone would argue against my point that deciding the world cup by two things completely irrelevant to actual 50 over cricket makes no sense.

FFS, even the betting agents agree...

Australian betting agency Sportsbet announced on Monday it is refunding punters who backed New Zealand after the farcical finish to the 2019 World Cup. In all, 11,458 Sportsbet punters have been refunded $426,223. Punters who backed New Zealand in both the head to head and the outright tournament market will be refunded their stakes in bonus bets. “Let’s not beat around the bush, for a World Cup to be decided in that manner is an absolute disgrace, and the punters shouldn’t have to pay for the ineptness of the ICC,’’ said sportsbet.com.au’s Rich Hummerston.

 

[Red]

It has plenty in common though doesn’t it? It’s just limited overs cricket on steroids

Plus surely you thought it was exciting?

No, I thought it was stupid. Completely and utterly. Limited overs cricket on steroids makes no sense, it's not limited overs cricket.

At the end of the Ashes, if it's 2 wins each, why not have a quick T20 game to decide who gets to win the Ashes? It's just test cricket on steroids.

 

[GIMH]

If you have a contest with agreed rules and parameters, and at the end of the agreed contest, scores are level, there is zero issue with saying "this is the final result".

I'm not sure why anyone would argue against my point that deciding the world cup by two things completely irrelevant to actual 50 over cricket makes no sense.

FFS, even the betting agents agree...

Well interesting that you say that, given we did have agreed parameters which is why I’m in the land of the world champs.

You’ve mentioned six weeks a few times, six weeks and no winner seems awfully pointless to me.

 

[GIMH]

No, I thought it was stupid. Completely and utterly. Limited overs cricket on steroids makes no sense, it's not limited overs cricket.

At the end of the Ashes, if it's 2 wins each, why not have a quick T20 game to decide who gets to win the Ashes? It's just test cricket on steroids.

Well by definition it is limited overs cricket

The Ashes doesn’t need a tiebreaker, you know this.

 

[Red]

Well interesting that you say that, given we did have agreed parameters which is why I’m in the land of the world champs.

See, people keep saying this like others (Australians) are salty because Eng won. It's nothing to do with it. I'm pleased for Eng to finally win it. I think Eng and India were clearly the best teams and one of them deserved it (although I think everyone would be happy for NZ to win it).

It is not to do with Eng, it's to do with the process.

 

[Red]

Well by definition it is limited overs cricket

The Ashes doesn’t need a tiebreaker, you know this.

By LO cricket I meant 50 over cricket, apologies.

And the world cup doesn't "need" a tie breaker. There are plenty of other legit solutions to this that actually honour the game that's been played for 6 weeks.

 

[GIMH]

See, people keep saying this like others (Australians) are salty because Eng won. It's nothing to do with it. I'm pleased for Eng to finally win it. I think Eng and India were clearly the best teams and one of them deserved it (although I think everyone would be happy for NZ to win it).

It is not to do with Eng, it's to do with the process.

Yeah fair enough. What’s interesting is I’ve not seen many complaints about the super over - more the fact we then won on countback. I don’t really object to the super over concept. You do. I guess that’s that.

 

[GIMH]

By LO cricket I meant 50 over cricket, apologies.

And the world cup doesn't "need" a tie breaker. There are plenty of other legit solutions to this that actually honour the game that's been played for 6 weeks.

I’m fine with an alternate solution, just not a shared trophy.

 

[Victor Ian]

In a test series when there is a draw the trophy remains with the incumbent. So, I declare Australia the winner.