Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #451  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:11 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
Meant to ask this earlier, but why didn’t they play another super over? Seems like it wouldn’t be that hard to set up. Each team should have 3 more batsmen and 1 more bowler ready.
The simple answer is that the rules were not set up that way and you can't change it mid-tournament.

There have been 38 tied ODI's in total. Five at the world cup and only the last one required a super over at all so it is hardly a pressing concern.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #452  
Old 07-16-2019, 02:55 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
It's the law of diminishing returns - as stated, it's already very rare for an ODI to be tied. Of those, this is the first to even have a super over, let alone be tied after it. What if the teams are tied after the second super over, why not have a third? In the end you have to draw the line somewhere and accept a less-ideal but final tiebreaker (had they been tied on boundaries also, I believe drawing of lots (or in practice, presumably, coin toss) would be the final decider.
  #453  
Old 07-16-2019, 03:54 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
It's the law of diminishing returns - as stated, it's already very rare for an ODI to be tied. Of those, this is the first to even have a super over, let alone be tied after it. What if the teams are tied after the second super over, why not have a third? In the end you have to draw the line somewhere and accept a less-ideal but final tiebreaker (had they been tied on boundaries also, I believe drawing of lots (or in practice, presumably, coin toss) would be the final decider.
Cricinfo suggests that the next tie would be going back, ball by ball, through the super over and the innings until you get to a ball which is different, and the highest runs off that ball wins. Since England scored a 4 off the final ball and NZ got a single, Eng would win that. I've not seen that anywhere else though.
  #454  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:02 AM
Wallaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Melbourne, Far South
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
Meant to ask this earlier, but why didn’t they play another super over? Seems like it wouldn’t be that hard to set up. Each team should have 3 more batsmen and 1 more bowler ready.

That's what they should have done. The sun was still up. No one wanted to go home. At least the Super Over is a 'mini form' of the basic game - ie, you have a limited amount of overs to score as many runs as possible. No different to a sudden-death playoff at golf, extra innings in Baseball.

The Super Over was invented for T20 Cricket, which was invented as a TV product - a game fits into 3 hours. Time at the end for a couple of interviews to wrap things up, or a Super over. If it's still tied - eh - sorry, got to get to the next program. Let's have a Tie Breaker.

No need to rush this - a World Cup only happens once every 4 years. Just keep playing super overs until you get a result.
  #455  
Old 07-16-2019, 06:09 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallaby View Post
That's what they should have done.
In this specific instance, they did exactly what they should have done, which was follow the rules laid down before hand. Whether they change the rules for future competitions is a different issue.
  #456  
Old 07-16-2019, 07:00 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallaby View Post
No need to rush this - a World Cup only happens once every 4 years. Just keep playing super overs until you get a result.
That could literally go on for ever - sure, unlikely, but so is having a super over at all. You always need to have something else in place (not least for the scenario where the match (and the reserve day) is curtailed by weather). At some point you have to call it done, and after one super over seems like the best compromise between trying to decide it on the field and have it drag on for too long.
  #457  
Old 07-16-2019, 07:28 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,017
Both teams faced 50 overs, after which they had exactly the same amount of runs. This is already an absurdly unlikely outcome.

Both teams then faced another over, after which they had exactly the same amount of runs.

This tells us something important. It tells that both teams are precisely equally good at cricket. At this point, any means of deciding that actually one team is infinitesimally better at cricket than the other is going to be unsatisfactory. How could it not? One team is not better than the other. We've just seen this proven at length.

At this point, for my money, the option that is not only fairest but also best reflects the outcome of the match, is to declare a tie and have both teams share the WC. England and New Zealand - two titans between whom we cannot slip the proverbial cigarette paper. Praise them both. But that's unpalatable, for perfectly understandable reasons. So we pick some other aspect of playing cricket and use that to break the tie. In this case, boundaries hit. It could be number of extras conceded, or wickets taken, or dot balls bowled (in a tied match, this will be inverse to boundaries hit, I suppose) or DRS on the last ball or some other minor statistic, but whatever it is it will leave a bad taste in the mouth because at this point we are trying to make a distinction where no distinction exists. Unsatisfactory options are all we have.
  #458  
Old 07-16-2019, 07:54 AM
AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,204
If multiple SuperOvers are something people take issue with, then instead have two Extra innings of 5 overs each. All XI bat and one bowler bowls max 1 over each (maybe 1 can bowl 2).
Thats at least a truncated version of the game, like extra-time in football, or hockey.
Then go the tie breakers, like wickets lost.
  #459  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:20 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
You know, I'm going to slightly contradict my previous thought on this and declare wickets taken is a better tiebreaker than boundaries. England had to take more risks to scrape the same number of runs as New Zealand managed and lost 2 more wickets as a result. So if they remained tied after the super over, wickets (including those taken in the super overs?) seems a reasonable tiebreak. The only other change you would have to make is to stipulate the team who had lost more wickets (if any) in the 50 overs would bat second for the super over, so they would know they had to surpass the super over score to win (much like NZ knew that a tied super over wasn't enough for them). If they were tied on wickets after 50 overs, let the team who lost the toss initially choose whether to bat first or second for the super over (presumably they would always choose second, but no reason not to offer the choice). That would also help to equalise the original toss slightly.
  #460  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:23 AM
AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,204
Yes, if wickets is the criteria, they don't go for non existant twos on the last two ball in regulation, Stokes hits it into the St Johns Wood station.
  #461  
Old 07-16-2019, 09:49 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
You know, I'm going to slightly contradict my previous thought on this and declare wickets taken is a better tiebreaker than boundaries. England had to take more risks to scrape the same number of runs as New Zealand managed and lost 2 more wickets as a result.
Sure, we could do that but judging by the competition overall and on this ground specifically it was a much harder tasks to chase than to bat first. From that perspective wickets lost aren't necessarily a better reflection of performance than boundaries.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #462  
Old 07-16-2019, 11:55 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
True. But nothing's perfect, as Stanislaus elegantly pointed out. You could argue that in the event of a tie, the loser of the original toss is declared the winner (either before or after a super over - my preference would be "after"), because the toss winners have in theory had what can be a significant advantage, and they have failed to make it count. Which could mean the other team has overall played better.
  #463  
Old 07-16-2019, 04:31 PM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
True. But nothing's perfect, as Stanislaus elegantly pointed out. You could argue that in the event of a tie, the loser of the original toss is declared the winner (either before or after a super over - my preference would be "after"), because the toss winners have in theory had what can be a significant advantage, and they have failed to make it count. Which could mean the other team has overall played better.
I quite like that as well. You could even take it one step further. The winner of the toss could be given the choice of deciding to bat/field or, handing that choice to the opposition and retaining the tie-break advantage instead. Now I think the winner of the toss will very rarely pass that over because of the rarity of ties but at the end of the match you would be able to point to it and say "you had the option"
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #464  
Old 07-16-2019, 07:34 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,027
These alternative “tie breaker” methodologies are creative and almost all solve one problem and create another.

Consider a fantastical scenario.
Team A “The Gorillas” scores 300 all out off 50 overs, all scores being 6s, all wickets being caught on the boundary
Team B “The Dweebs” score 300 all out off 50 overs, all scores being singles, all wickets being run outs trying to get a second run.
It’s a judgement call on what constitutes playing “better” cricket in a sport where the basic nature of the game is asynchronous.


So my question is, why the fuck does there need to be a winner?
Gambling interests? The UScentric notion that sport outcomes must be binary?

That was a fantastic game of cricket, with a myriad of points where the end result could have changed and at the end of the allotted 50 overs under the laws and conduct of the game the two teams could not be split.
That’s what needs to be recorded in the sporting annals, not some artificial construct for expediency that say ENG won hypothetically based on the 5th iteration of a count back that on the 3rd ball of the super over ENG hit a boundary off a French cut while NZ got "only" 3 from a smoked cover drive cut off mm from the rope.
The ICC can’t afford the cost of engraving?
  #465  
Old 07-17-2019, 02:41 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Good point well made. Would either team or set of fans have been dissatisfied with that outcome? Actually, the only ones who would have really hated it would have been Australians! There was already provision for the trophy to be shared in the event of a washout, after all.

As for gambling interests, the bookmakers would be delighted as they would retain all bets, except for the tiny percentage who bet on a tied game.
  #466  
Old 07-17-2019, 10:28 AM
Mr Shine's Avatar
Mr Shine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
Good point well made. Would either team or set of fans have been dissatisfied with that outcome? Actually, the only ones who would have really hated it would have been Australians! There was already provision for the trophy to be shared in the event of a washout, after all.

As for gambling interests, the bookmakers would be delighted as they would retain all bets, except for the tiny percentage who bet on a tied game.
Actually, "dead heat" rules would apply: Say England were at 5 (4/1) and NZ were at 7 (6/1) (numbers made up) at the beginning and you placed £10 on England half of it would lose and half would win, as there are two occupants of a bet that only should have one. You'd get £5*5=£25. If you bet £10 on NZ you'd get £5*7=£35.
  #467  
Old 07-17-2019, 05:04 PM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Thanks for the correction.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017