The World Cup Final - Who Will Win?

[pasag]

Preferably a re-match. But I don't mind joint winners either. A bowl-out to decide a World Cup final is the epitome of direness, imo.

 

[nightprowler10]

Quite right.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Dire.

How anyone could think that would be a fair way to see who had the better cricket team is beyond me. I'd just award the Cup to whoever finished higher after the Super 8 stage in the event of a tied final - or even just have joint-winners.

Why? I think it's exciting. A tournament doesn't have to be fair. Also, how is it not fair it's the same rules for both teams. Penalty shoots the best part of soccer and i think bowl out's a exciting part of cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

A tournament doesn't have to be fair. Also, how is it not fair it's the same rules for both teams.

I didn't say it wasn't fair to both teams - I said it wasn't a fair way to see who had the better cricket team. There's a difference. By your logic, making them have a knife fight to the death would also be a fair way to end the tournament in the event of a tie, because the same rules would apply to both teams.

I'd hate to see the result of such a big tournament determined by something so very dire and random.

 

[Athlai]

I didn't say it wasn't fair to both teams - I said it wasn't a fair way to see who had the better cricket team. There's a difference. By your logic, making them have a knife fight to the death would also be a fair way to end the tournament in the event of a tie, because the same rules would apply to both teams.

I'd hate to see the result of such a big tournament determined by something so very dire and random.

Bowl out is fine for twenty twenty, fits right in one the silly vibe of it all. But for real cricket, it has no place to exist.

They should just have a sack race to decide.

 

[Perm]

Went for Australia, can't see them being beaten.

 

[Craig]

For the sake of world cricket I hope Sri Lanka get it.

 

[SJS]

...... Australia, can't see them being beaten.

I can......... in my wildest dreams

Seriously. I do think its good for cricket if we have a challenge to this monopoly of the Aussies but it has to come through an improvement in world standards and not through a decline of the magnificient Australians.

And that improvemnt in world standards seems a very long time away in the future irrespective of whether or not Sri Lanka win. Thats what makes one sad.

 

[chaminda_00]

Haha bowl out, don't know what would be worse having Tait in your side or Dilhara...

 

[irfan]

Dire.

How anyone could think that would be a fair way to see who had the better cricket team is beyond me. I'd just award the Cup to whoever finished higher after the Super 8 stage in the event of a tied final - or even just have joint-winners.

Bowl Out ?? Are u guys sure ?
Surely the most fairest way to decide between the two teams would have to be a rematch (i.e AFL grand final). Don't tell me you are relying on sources like Wikipedia ??

 

[irfan]

Haha bowl out, don't know what would be worse having Tait in your side or Dilhara...

Mick Lewis

 

[GIMH]

Dire.

How anyone could think that would be a fair way to see who had the better cricket team is beyond me. I'd just award the Cup to whoever finished higher after the Super 8 stage in the event of a tied final - or even just have joint-winners.

Preferably a re-match. But I don't mind joint winners either. A bowl-out to decide a World Cup final is the epitome of direness, imo.

Why? I think it's exciting. A tournament doesn't have to be fair. Also, how is it not fair it's the same rules for both teams. Penalty shoots the best part of soccer and i think bowl out's a exciting part of cricket.

A replay is the best bet, failing that a shared trophy. I don't agree with alternative methods of selecting a winner, be it a bowl-out, or the side that finished higher in the Super 8. Neither of them have any relevance to the match.

And penalty shoots aren't the best part of soccer. They're the worst part of football.

 

[Jono]

Australia.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd be seriously pissed off if the WC was decided by a bowl out. I can't imagine a worse thing for cricket. Penalty shoot outs are awful in football, but they're a necessary evil of sorts, and at least they test a genuinely relevant skill in the game. Players actually have to take and defend penalties in football, they don't have to bowl at stumps without a batsman in cricket, and to decide matches via that is a joke. They may as well arm wrestle. Obviously most people realise this already, but if that's actually part of the rules, someone somewhere must think it's a good idea, and that just blows my mind.

 

[Jono]

I refuse to believe, no matter what Wikipedia says, that by some instance of a tie, the ICC would have the balls in ending what they believe to be cricket's biggest stage in a bowl-off. I simply cannot fathom this occurring.

 

[marc71178]

But then again, considering the likelihood of a tie, is it ever likely to come into force?

 

[SJS]

Its amazing that the difference between those who say tie and those who say Sri Lanka is just 2. Considering that less than 1% of all ODI's have been tied (22 out of 2580) what does this tell us of Sri Lanka's chances ??

..... or of the seriousness of those voting for a tie , undersigned included

 

[Athlai]

What about cricket overtime on the event of a tie?

An extra 5 overs. Each main bowler gets one over. With only a certain amount of wickets in hand, like 2? That could be fun, I could see how it could into a slog fest but with wickets more valuable you never know.

 

[Jono]

Nah better if you had to send in your number 11 to face two overs. Whichever number 11 scored more runs in those two overs wins.

McGrath vs. Murali in a batting contest would be awesome.

 

[howardj]

We will, I reckon.

C'mon Macca. Go out in a bullying blaze of glory!