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.
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.
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.
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”
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?
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 £55=£25. If you bet £10 on NZ you’d get £57=£35.
Thanks for the correction.