World Cup NOT shared if final tied

[TN25]

If I'm following your scenario correctly; Team A all out 280, Team B 6/280 being an example; then yes, just hand it over.

I actually would like to see wickets lost used as the first tie-breaker for all limited overs cricket (whether limited to 50, 20, or any other number), but that's not going to happen either.

I think the wickets lost is a good idea. Very unlikely it would be used though

 

[Illinois Nazi]

If the final is tied, award the title alphabetically.

And hope we don't play Afghanistan in the final.

 

[GROTTO]

St Kilda probably wishing they had this in the AFL.

 

[telsor]

Only one realistic option.

MULTIBALL!


But really, go by lead in record (most wins, tournament net run rate) and if nothing else toss a coin. 2 winners sucks.

 

[Bomberboyokay]

Hooray!

The upcoming cricket World Cup final will be decided by a super over in the event of a tie, the sport's governing body announced on Thursday.

The move is a return to the playing condition in force at the last World Cup in 2011, abandoning a proposal to have "joint winners", made by the International Cricket Council (ICC) last year.

"The ICC Board reinstated the use of a super over in the event of a tie in the ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 final," an ICC release said.

The ICC said a super over - in which both teams play one over of six balls - was the best way to decide the winner if the sides cannot be separated by the regulation 50 overs each.

"This now replicates the arrangements for the World Cup 2011 final and other recent ICC events where a winner will be determined on the day of the final (weather permitting), and a super over was the most credible way to separate the two sides," the statement said.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-30/cricket-world-cup-final-to-be-decided-by-super-over/6056514

 

[eth-dog]

Hooray!



http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-30/cricket-world-cup-final-to-be-decided-by-super-over/6056514

Common sense prevails.

 

[ptrg]

Good result. But I cannot believe we are less than 2 weeks from the start of the tournament, and yet we still have no idea as to which DRA rules will be in place, if any at all..

 

[Torz]

The solution is so obvious.

BIG BASH SMASH! With unhittable full tosses.

 

[ioppolo]

Would've preferred the wickets thing. A team finishing 4/287 chasing 287 all out is crowned the winner.

 

[Mancey]

I think the super over was the obvious solution, similar to extra time in other sports.

Would like it to be a bit longer than 1 over however, at least 2-3.

I don't agree with the wicket thing. Not for any real valid reason, other than the team batting second has a greater feeling for the number of wickets they can lose than the team batting first. If its down to the last over, and you're 5 down with say, 7 to get, and the other team finished 6 down, you are immediately only trying to score 6 runs for the win.

 

[getthefooty]

I don't agree with the wicket thing. Not for any real valid reason, other than the team batting second has a greater feeling for the number of wickets they can lose than the team batting first. If its down to the last over, and you're 5 down with say, 7 to get, and the other team finished 6 down, you are immediately only trying to score 6 runs for the win.

Correct, wickets lost is a bad idea. Favours the side batting second, and as another poster said, are just a resource to be used in any way you like to score runs in a limited amount of time. Losing less wickets does not mean you have outperformed the other side in any way.

 

[cricketnut14]

super over seems to be the logical thing - although its another game in a sense and a short one at that, more geared towards the team that selected 20/20 players in their odi side. maybe when the teams are submitted they can nominate who will open the batting and who will bowl in the event of a superover.

not sold on the loss of wickets to determine a winner after 50 , i mean in the BBL superover they changed that from 2 out all out to unlimited.

there is no reserve day and the spectators will not flock back, as it would be on a work day, and the AFL will be wanting the ground ready for their opener on the Thursday.

what about a countback ? , who was leading at the end of the 49th over etc etc - although i can just see a game finishing after 50 with stunned faces asking questions - who won etc (players/officials/the crowd).

leader after 25th over ?

who ever made most runs in powerplay ?

 

[eth-dog]

A super over is the most logical way to do it.

 

[Oaktree]

I think the super over was the obvious solution, similar to extra time in other sports.

Would like it to be a bit longer than 1 over however, at least 2-3.

I don't agree with the wicket thing. Not for any real valid reason, other than the team batting second has a greater feeling for the number of wickets they can lose than the team batting first. If its down to the last over, and you're 5 down with say, 7 to get, and the other team finished 6 down, you are immediately only trying to score 6 runs for the win.

A 3 over contest would make good sense in an ODI. It needs to be somewhat relative.

Plus, it wouldn't take too long and would extend the excitement. Super overs can be anti-climatic.

 

[Moonwatcher]

Winner of the toss wins the match in the event of a tie.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Winner of the toss wins the match in the event of a tie.

Why is everyone so hell bent on giving every advantage under the sun to the team that wins the toss?

How is that more logical than a super over?

 

[ioppolo]

Drawing of lots, African cup of nations style/soccer style.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/31047060

 

[Moonwatcher]

Why is everyone so hell bent on giving every advantage under the sun to the team that wins the toss?

How is that more logical than a super over?

Super over is better, I am just brain storming. Having said that I would like to know the stats on teams winning after winning the toss, adding wins for the tied games wouldn't change the advantage significantly.

 

[The_Reaper]

Super over is better, I am just brain storming. Having said that I would like to know the stats on teams winning after winning the toss, adding wins for the tied games wouldn't change the advantage significantly.

It would change the advantage massively because the team that won the toss didn't win the game after up to 100 overs of cricket.

 

[Impunity!]

Get the bowling machine out - each team nominates a batsman to face 3 balls. Longest six wins.

 

[Moonwatcher]

It would change the advantage massively because the team that won the toss didn't win the game after up to 100 overs of cricket.

In about 0.5% percent of matches, much less than the advantage of winning the toss on the result of matches. On the days that it does happen then yes it is a huge advantage.

 

[The_Reaper]

In about 0.5% percent of matches, much less than the advantage of winning the toss on the result of matches. On the days that it does happen then yes it is a huge advantage.

Well given this rule would only apply in that 0.5% of the time

 

[Moonwatcher]

My preference would be to have the best performing team throughout the tournament win in the event of a tie. Much like the top ranked ODD side wins the final if the match is tied. Winning percentage followed by net run rate. If that can't decide the result than a super over. It would be known before the final what the result of a tie would mean for each participating team before the match in most cases.

 

[Moonwatcher]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cr...y-ODIs-are-decided-by-the-toss-of-a-coin.html

This article says Australia and NZ have a better win/loss ratio when losing the toss. Interesting read seems that winning the toss isn't as influential on a match as I thought though you should bat in the afternoon 1st innings DN and 2nd innings for day matches.

 

[Costanza_]

Largest average penis length for the respective selected XI's to determine the result.

If it's still a tie, average girth.