New Zealand news

Hesson criticises ICC on Super Over

ESPNcricinfo staff

October 3, 2012

Comments: 191 | Text size: A | A

Ross Taylor just failed to take New Zealand over the line, New Zealand v West Indies, Super Eights, World Twenty20 2012, Pallekele, October 1, 2012
Ross Taylor was distraught after losing a second game, against West Indies, in the Super Over © Getty Images
Related Links
Features : Dead ball or no-ball?
Players/Officials: Mike Hesson
Series/Tournaments: ICC World Twenty20
Teams: New Zealand

Mike Hesson, the New Zealand coach, has questioned the ICC's rationale behind using a Super Over in non-knockout matches. New Zealand tied two of their Super Eight matches - against Sri Lanka and West Indies - but subsequently lost both in the Super Over, and the defeat to England meant that they ended at the bottom of their group.

"I can't work out why, in a non-elimination game, you have to have a Super Over. I've never worked that out,'' Hesson said. "We lost a couple of key moments. You know, we were two runs away from being top of the pool and being top qualifier, so there's a level of satisfaction there but I think every team that leaves the World Cup without the trophy's disappointed and we're no different."

Hesson also criticised the ICC on the issue of a bowler knocking the stumps during his bowling stride. In New Zealand's match against England, Steven Finn bumped into the stumps thrice. The first ball was a leg-side wide, second was played for a single and the third was hit to the boundary by James Franklin. However, each time the ball was ruled as dead, the bowler getting away without a warning.

"I have also never worked out how you can kick the stumps over and get a benefit. If that doesn't change they [the ICC] have got rocks in their head," Hesson said. "I'm not sure how they came to that conclusion. Basically we [all coaches and captains] came to a meeting pre-tournament and they told us what was happening. There wasn't a discussion.

"I don't blame Steven Finn but they've made one rule for one person. He also did it once [for a warning] but not twice against Sri Lanka. It would have been interesting to see the response if they had hit a boundary.''

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (October 5, 2012, 5:22 GMT)

black caps still would have missed out on semis if no super over.

Sri Lanka 5 pts WI 3 pts NZ 2 pts Poms 2 pts

agree its stupid though, but black caps can only blame them selves, they had the WI games won and blew it big time.

Posted by   on (October 4, 2012, 22:30 GMT)

That is a fairly loaded statement Dan Seymour. I play in a club T20 competition and we have had a few ties, the two teams take a point each and its left at that. Obviously with knockout games you need to a tie-break and I think the best analogy is the football shoot out, they don't have a shoot out in the World Cup Group stages so why is it different for cricket? Hesson is well within his rights to ask this question of the ICC and he's also a brave man to suggest they have "rocks in their heads". Perhaps we have underestimated NZ's new coach, looks like there's some mongrel in his approach which is just what the Black Caps need now.

Posted by   on (October 4, 2012, 12:16 GMT)

the fact is whether its school cricket , domestic cricket, league cricket, club cricket, first class cricket or international cricket u can not tie or draw a t20 match there must be a winner.

Posted by   on (October 4, 2012, 9:26 GMT)

in soccer they dont have penalty shout out before a knockout match that what they should do in cricket

Posted by AMRUTH on (October 4, 2012, 8:26 GMT)

Would suggest the total No.of 4's and 6's are taken into consideration. The team scoring more runs in boundaries will be the winner. As in any case in a tied Super Over this is what they do. T20 is all about entertaintment cricket. More 6's & 4's more fun.

Posted by VivtheGreatest on (October 4, 2012, 7:49 GMT)

Absolutely right. A super-over is an anomaly in league matches. A tie is the fairest result in such instances

Posted by Rajavel-cricket on (October 4, 2012, 5:36 GMT)

yes super over is really a non- sense.. i hate to the super over,, I think bowl out is far better than super over.

Posted by Asif_Iqbal on (October 4, 2012, 4:35 GMT)

100% agreed with Hesson there is no need to a super over for round matches in all other sports if matched tied in non nock out round points are divided equaly also one more thing in this T20 I cant understand on which method they make 2 group for super over in group 1 all the teams which are 2nd in there goup and all top 4 PAK,IND,AUS & SA in group 2 amazing.

Posted by   on (October 4, 2012, 2:21 GMT)

In other sports a tie break is generally say 1/8 of the normal game time for a result to be worked out. In basketball you play an extra 6 minutes, in Rugby its an extra 15 or 20 minutes etc... If they want to keep it in it has to be longer than 1 over, 4-5 overs and as the match state was (aka wickets as they were, no pinch hitting), at the moment its like having a 30 second overtime in basketball where players who have fouled out can come back on.

The kicking the bails problem, agree a simple no-ball would fix the problem.

Posted by Meety on (October 4, 2012, 1:40 GMT)

Pity he says it after being on the losing end. He is right though, Super Overs should only be for knock-out matches.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Tournament Results
Sri Lanka v West Indies at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 7, 2012
West Indies won by 36 runs
Australia v West Indies at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 5, 2012
West Indies won by 74 runs
Sri Lanka v Pakistan at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 4, 2012
Sri Lanka won by 16 runs
India v South Africa at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 2, 2012
India won by 1 run
Australia v Pakistan at Colombo (RPS) - Oct 2, 2012
Pakistan won by 32 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days