World Twenty20 2012 September 27, 2012

'Neither of you deserve to win'

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

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

Comments