THE CORDON HOME

BLOGS ARCHIVES
SELECT BLOG
September 27, 2012

World Twenty20 2012

'Neither of you deserve to win'

Jarrod Kimber
Lahiru Thirimanne is run out off the final ball with the scores tied, Sri Lanka v New Zealand, World T20 2012, Super Eights, Pallekele, September 27, 2012
Did the bail jump off on its volition?  © AFP
Enlarge

RELATED LINKS

There is no super speed with a Super Over. Add to that the bail that seemed to have jumped off on its own volition, and the whole process seemed to take longer than the game itself.

While the West Indies left the ground mid warm-up, I thought of the only Super Over I could remember. It was oddly a warm-up match between Ireland and the Dutch before the 2009 World T20. Ireland scored 6 for one wicket, with three byes and one leg bye. Then the Dutch scored two off the first ball, and had back-to-back run-outs from the third and fourth balls to lose by four runs. It was brilliantly farcical. But it was like the out-takes that show during the credits.

Those memories didn't last long enough, as now the ICC end of match paraphernalia had to be taken from the field. I wondered about the need for a Super Over. This was only a round-robin match; there was no real reason why it couldn't just be a tie. Ties are cool too. Neither team really deserved to win, the Kiwis couldn't field at all and Sri Lanka took their foot off the gas before they even got to the home straight. Sometimes a tie is fate's way of saying, "hey, neither of you deserve to win this". But this is T20; we must have a result at the end of our three (or four) hours of cricket. This must end cleanly after many minutes of fumbling.

At the moment the scoreboard is being restocked with the correct names, or Chris Gayle has been recruited for New Zealand. I'm not really sure I like a Super Over, it seems like a lot of fun, but ... And like a film with too many endings, it had the perfect storyline of the slow motion shoot-out where you're not sure who has died, only for the film to end a few minutes later with an ending of far less tension. A tie is generally going to be more exciting than a Super Over because it took all match to fester, and isn't massively contrived.

The three-man batting and one-man bowling attacks have been chosen. The game could have finished in a cloud of smoke with a controversial run-out. We could have had experts musing and debating the end of this game like cricket's Zapruder film. Everyone could have taken sides. Maybe the bail was taken out by a grassy knee. The whole event seems to deny the law of physics. Sometimes a mysterious end full of questions is the right way to end.

WHAT DID TIM SOUTHEE THINK THE LINES ON THE PITCH MEANT, WHY WAS MCCULLUM CLAPPING, HOW MANY BATSMEN CAN BAT IN A SUPER OVER, WHERE WERE THE BOUNDARIES, WHICH END DO THEY PICK, WHY IS PERERA OUT THERE, HOW THE HELL DID SRI LANKA END UP WITH 13 RUNS, DOES TAYLOR NOT THINK HE CAN HIT MALINGA, IS THERE ANOTHER SUPER OVER AFTER THIS SUPER OVER, WHY CAN'T ANYONE PICK UP THE BALL CLEANLY, WAS THAT A WIDE OR DID MCCULLUM EDGE IT, WILL KUMAR'S DROP LOSE IT FOR SRI LANKA, AND WHAT'S WRONG WITH A TIE.

Jarrod Kimber is 50% of the Two Chucks, and the mind responsible for cricketwithballs.com

RSS Feeds: Jarrod Kimber

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by Wraaaaa on (October 1, 2012, 23:20 GMT)

I like how some of you are saying the writer might be kiwi or he's upset that Sri Lanka prevailed over NZ.

Well sorry to break it to you guys but he's actually AUSTRALIAN (sorry uncle J) and he's got every reason to NOT support NZ and be glad SL won. But I guess he's just a genuine cricket journalist who loves the game and doesn't write articles cause some loss is hurting him.

Posted by lankawen on (September 30, 2012, 18:15 GMT)

The writer is obviously upset that Sri Lanka prevailed over New Zealand.. On another note, I'm sick of seeing draws in cricket..Boring as hell!

Posted by Vivek Bhandari on (September 28, 2012, 10:14 GMT)

A very valid point indeed! With the superover the ICC has virtually robbed us of enjoying in the beauty of a plain Tie match. Why should we have a superover if it's not a knock-out.

Posted by Umer on (September 28, 2012, 7:30 GMT)

Exactly, ending up on tie satisfies everyone watching the game. In fact, super over can change the fate of any team to its fortune and its mediocre performance on certain situations can be made up by some brilliancy in the end - after the actual end.

Posted by Reddy on (September 28, 2012, 4:42 GMT)

So true mangz, a tie sets up their next encounter even more nicely, and the Super Over is so bleeding arbitrary, why not have the punters see who can juggle the cricket ball with their bats the longest for all the good it is.

Posted by Gizza on (September 28, 2012, 3:19 GMT)

I agree. It was definitely exciting but I don't think a super over is necessary in the league stage of the tournament. Why not give 1 point each since for the Twenty over game, both teams were equal. It will actually make the qualification equations later on more interesting. I guess the super over is good for semis and finals.

Posted by mantle on (September 28, 2012, 0:58 GMT)

You are a fool to not go for a result. Are you from newzealand? may be that's what pushing your mind to choose tie. It's not your fault, but dude c'mmon don't you want a result. We changed a 5 day game to odi and then to t20, why? because we need results. Not all winning teams deserve to win, no fng fate is involved in this; you can say it is involved if you and me meet in a plane and we accidentally end up talking about this game.

Posted by Finger Power on (September 27, 2012, 23:54 GMT)

I think a tie in cricket is a unique outcome that should be treasured as such. Although there are more ties in T20 than test or ODIs, they are still quite rare. Its not like tennis or football where you need a tie-breaker or penalty shootout to frequently unlock a match. Also I think in a tie, both teams put on a good show, and it may sound cliched, but neither team deserves to loose.

What is this obsession with unlocking the result of a cricket match that is a tie? What about countless matches that get abandoned by rain? So many times, matches are abandoned when a team is dominating and rain rules out the game, and the other teM gets one point too. Why isnt there a fair system to address such situations? Cricketing community should worry more about these abandoned games, and boring draws in tests rather than needlessly unlocking a tied match.

I dont agree with using super over for knock out games too. Because usually there are clear rules as to which team will progress if the match is tie. The WC 1999 semi was a tie, and was a fantastic game, and it IS remembered as a tie.

in SL NZ game, no one would have complained if both teams had got 1 point. but I am sure WI had been furious if they would have been kicked out of the tournament, due to 2 rain interrupted matches. Had their RR been somewhat smaller, Ireland would have gone through. Today NZ deserved 1 point too, and it would have in fact made their weak group look much more interesting and competitive.

Posted by PDTM on (September 27, 2012, 23:24 GMT)

Imagine if the Tied Test had have gone into a Super Over.

Posted by Faisal Taquie on (September 27, 2012, 21:19 GMT)

Brilliant! I totally agree. Also, I think the points from the first round should be carried over to make it meaningless.

Comments have now been closed for this article