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.

Posted by   on (October 4, 2012, 1:14 GMT)

That's very good comment by Nz Coach..Their is no need of super over in non knock out game.If team tied thn they can divide points.

Posted by   on (October 4, 2012, 1:09 GMT)

NZ VS Sri Lanka- Before Super Over, NZ deserved to win the match because they came back to prevent SL from winning.

NZ VS WI- Before Super Over, WI deserved to win because they came back and prevented NZ from winning.

I think it's all fair and it's way more better than a stupid bowl out. This is not soccer or any sport that entails all the players on the field at once then have then perform penalty skills.

Posted by   on (October 4, 2012, 1:05 GMT)

In the Super Eight, you need to distinguish between teams that should advance and teams that should not. It is in all fairness. A Super Over is great because who wants to split points when we're looking for a team to earn a spot in the next round. This clearly isn't soccer. Soccer players might now argue that they need a "third umpire or tv referee" to review goals & other decisions. T20 is going in the right manner and it's a game that should go in favor of the better team on that day.

If NZ had tied both their games, they still haven't defeated any team. WI defeated Eng, lost one match & would have tied one. They still played better than NZ due to that one win.Supposed SL might have drew with NZ, they defeated both Eng & WI. SL still emerged better because of those 2 wins. So in either case, the draws would not have changed any result for NZ.

T20 is about tough luck. Fans had enough of drawn ODIs, T20 games must be completed with a win or loss whether DL or Super Over.

Posted by   on (October 4, 2012, 0:09 GMT)

I think option of Super Over should be handed to the captains, which should be decided before the match that whether they want to have a super over in case of a tie or not.

Posted by kobler on (October 3, 2012, 22:47 GMT)

Nonsense! you can not tie a T20. What you must do is learn to chase 129. Poor that one can chase that against the WI

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 22:17 GMT)

Agree with this. Tie should be kept as a tie result. Actually "Tied match" is always more interesting. Why spoil the fun with the super over. On top of that for a "Tied match", I would prefer full points to both team for such an exciting and relatively rare result. Only abandoned match should yield split points. This will make matches and any tournament interesting. Of course we can have a tie breaker for knockout stages. ICC please see if you can get this point.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 22:11 GMT)

He has nailed it right on the head. Super over should only be used in knockout games like semi-finals and final. Even in football penalty shootouts or extra time for that matter are only used in knockout games; even though draws are more frequent in soccer than ties are in T20 cricket.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 21:28 GMT)

I think Mike is right, bowler knocking the stumps was pathetic. Y dont they decide based on number of wickets fallen and number of boundries after that. Also only in Knock out matches..

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 21:27 GMT)

a tied game in non elemination is common sense ! share the points

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 21:05 GMT)

Let's be honest, it's in there so that we can laugh when minnow teams such as NZ screw it p.

Posted by plow on (October 3, 2012, 20:33 GMT)

At last, some attitude from New Zealand Management. Happy to see that somone actually shows they dont like losing. I hope Hesson installs some attitude into the rest of the team, wear your heart on your sleeves guys. 'Spirit of cricket award' pffttt.. who cares about that? Really? Winning is what counts and I feel Hesson is the first step towards a winning at all costs attitude. Sight on the next team guys, a full series. Crush them.

Posted by pak94fan on (October 3, 2012, 20:25 GMT)

I have to agree with him on both cases.

Firstly, the Super Over should only exist in knockout matches; in group stage matches, a tie should result in the points being divided between the teams, as is the case in most sports.

As for the dead ball issue with Finn, I think the problem here is that the bowler is making a mistake and everyone has to suffer. Instead, they should make it a no-ball and give a free-hit; that will cause Finn to work on this issue; and if he hits the stumps 3 times in an innings, he shouldn't be allowed to bowl further. It is not fair on the batting team that suffers from his hitting the stumps. Finn is a brilliant fast bowler; pace, accuracy, etc. If he removes this issue from his CV, he will gain more respect from one and all.

The ICC needs to re-consider some of their rules; when people criticize them, rather than just shunning them aside, the ICC should perhaps allow a conversation on the topic, at least, so that progress can be made on the issue.

Posted by al_coholic on (October 3, 2012, 18:56 GMT)

I dont get it - both teams are aware up front that a super over seals a win in case the game is tied in regulation. Just as both know a run here and there in a close game's final over matters in a win or a loss. Deciding a win on a coin toss is stupid, but an entire over to prove a winner, cmon , thats fair. Had NZ done the needfull during regulation, hey wldnt have to worry about a super over decider. This is plain whining from Mr. Hesson

Posted by PACERONE on (October 3, 2012, 18:52 GMT)

Hesson is right in both cases.The kicking over of the stumps does irk me most.You over step or touch the return crease with your back foot and it is called a no ball.Finn goes the furthest over and knocks the stumps and the batting team gets penalized.This could only happen because he is an English bowler.They do not want him to alter his run up.How does he avoid running onto the danger area or is he?

Posted by bouncer1021 on (October 3, 2012, 18:38 GMT)

He is right about both issues. Supper over should start from semi finals. Why you get a tie when it rains? May be you should only have a supper over??

Posted by AttaGirl on (October 3, 2012, 18:32 GMT)

I prefer super over to bowl-outs to decide a winner.

Posted by criccclov on (October 3, 2012, 18:28 GMT)

Where the bowl out has gone in t20 cricket?it was also quite interesting,i remember it being done in first t20 tournament back in 2007.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 18:18 GMT)

No issues from me in relation to losing...I enjoy the super is a great for this form of the game. To me - New Zealand got knocked out because Ryder was not there...he is the only New Zealander to have true batting class since Crowe. The other issue is Finn and this needs to be sorted before the next International games for England. You step over the crease - no ball, youe step out to wide - no ball....why is knocking the stumps also not a no ball? Easy fix...and he would not do it again. 3 free hits, with the 6 runs....would of changed the result.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 18:05 GMT)

Personally, I prefer the bowl out. A super over is just an overdose of boundaries in a format already unbalanced in the contest of bat and ball. With the bowl out now, there lies the true entertainment. If the 5 bowlers from each team hits the stumps, and you start getting down to the batsmen that don't bowl, or even the wicket keeper. hahaha, that would be funny.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 18:00 GMT)

ohhhhhhhhh, he mad he didn't win any Super overs.

Posted by WAW11 on (October 3, 2012, 18:00 GMT)

Super over should be played by the batsmen surviving regular overs, starting with the last surviving pair.

Posted by nag1234 on (October 3, 2012, 17:55 GMT)

It's not about who raised the issue. There were comments regarding whether NZ coach would have raised the issue had NZ won both the game. If NZ had won those games, the issue might have been raised by WI coach. Its not abt who raised the issue (NZ, WI or INDIA coach). What the issue is? Is it worth considering? There is no need to have a super over in non-elimination games.The teams should share the points. I see some merit in his views and ICC should look into it.

Posted by Jamdowner on (October 3, 2012, 17:32 GMT)

We all knew the rules before the competition began. I suspect that the organisers wanted to have a winner for every match which was one of the reasons why limited over matches began. In one day you can have an outright winner. Tough luck KIWIs. Better luck next time.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 17:23 GMT)

Hes saying they would've qualified if they had gotten one more run each in the two tied matches. But that's irrelevant to his complaint about the super overs. Like others have said, If there was no super over, they would've still gone out of the tournament with only 2 points.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 17:22 GMT)

WI won 1, lost 1 and tied 1 in super 8's. How NZ deserved to be in the semis beats me. Also their matches in the first rounds were rained out( Aus and Ireland). Again the WI winning one match in 5 although factually correct is mischievous, or fans clutching at straws.

Posted by stickywicketnick on (October 3, 2012, 17:09 GMT)

Stop playing 21/21 Cricket then!

Posted by s3ns3 on (October 3, 2012, 16:53 GMT)

Hesson is spot on. He sounds quite intelligent, which is so unlike players.

Posted by creekeetman on (October 3, 2012, 16:38 GMT)

@ simon 2604, i personally could go either way on the super over issue in non elimination matches, it truly makes no difference to me which way it goes. but the rules are the rules, and i'm sure Hesson was fully aware of that. if he felt so strongly against it, why did'nt he speak up before? do you think he would've spoken up if nz won?

Posted by ChrisH on (October 3, 2012, 16:25 GMT)

Crick3tF4n makes an excellent point actually. Given the way NZ played, their ONLY hope of making it to the semi-finals was by having Super Overs in place for ties. Otherwise they would have been 3rd or 4th in the table with 2 points and Sri Lanka and WI would still go through. With the Super Overs NZ had the chance to pick up 4 points (and could have been second in the table) but they scuffed it. But then I suppose a team that went to the semi-finals without actually winning a single game in during regulation overs (with one loss and 2 ties) would also have been ridiculous if Hesson was going to be honest with himself.

Posted by ChrisH on (October 3, 2012, 16:05 GMT)

Why the fuss? Even if there was no Super Over and points were shared the point standings would simply have been Sri Lanka - 5; West Indies - 3; England - 2 and New Zealand - 2. New Zealand were never going to go through anyway with 2 ties and a loss. In any case the Super Overs are a good thing because without them we could end up with crazy situations like all teams tied on points and then having to figure out via statistics which team should go through. That's a poor method for the fans who are paying to see the teams play (unlike Mr. Hesson who is essentially being paid to see his team play) and not to see statisticians work some mathematical magic. And @Scott Franicevic - I really can't believe you asked which team out of NZ or WI played better. WI obviously. They at least won 1 match outright (against England), something NZ failed to do in 3 matches even if we discount the Super Overs. If NZ had played better they would have made 140 in 20 overs plain and simple, but they coudn't

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 16:00 GMT)

I agree in the pools stages it should remain a tie and share of points. For those of you saying they do the same in what pool stage of any tournament do they have a shootout?

It should be a no ball for his bowling technique. The guy has played cricket all his life and is a professional. If he knocks the stumps over bowling he shouldn't be allowed to play at this level.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 15:43 GMT)

There should be a super over, not only that if the super over lead to a tie then another super over should be there with only one wicket, if still a tie than another super over until there is a result.

Also there should be one umpire referral in T20 cricket also. It should be 2 referrals and one days and 3 in test innings...

Posted by no_second_chance_for_batsman on (October 3, 2012, 15:24 GMT)

I agree with NZ coach ! It is fair to give both the teams equal points & move on until its a very critical game as decided by tournament rules... cheers, kumar

Posted by Mary_786 on (October 3, 2012, 15:02 GMT)

Super over makes this format very exciting

Posted by Sinhaya on (October 3, 2012, 14:46 GMT)

@Balumekka, you are 100% right and cannot agree with you more!

Posted by PiyushD on (October 3, 2012, 14:28 GMT)

@Zahidsaltin you get closest to a perfect solution, but instead of super overs, I will say who played less dot balls.

Posted by DwightR on (October 3, 2012, 14:12 GMT)

i agree that the issue of the bowler hitting the stumps in stride should be looked at, maybe it should be changed to a no-ball. but I love the fact that every game needs a result with the super over. Worst thing as a fan is watching an exciting game just to end in a tie, doesnt work for cricket. Super Over is fine the way it is..the only adjustment should be if there is a tie in the super over it should go to a second super over & continue until there is a result not come down to who hit more boundaries.

Posted by maini_23081982 on (October 3, 2012, 14:07 GMT)

Even my mom with limited knowledge of cricket would approve of the change in rule around bowler hitting the stumps - to be treated like a no ball and even a free hit also awarded. Do not understand what's stopping ICC from making this simple change in rule. Regards Super-Over in Super 8's, NZ coach has raised a debatable point. But they should swallow the hard pill and remain pacified considering the fact that even if tied games were considered as 1 point for each team, NZ would have still ended with 2 points from 2 tied games (SL with 5, WI with 3 and ENG with 2) and thus not qualified for Semis. Only difference would have been NZ ending on 3rd position (based on NRR) and evaded the ignominy of lossing all games like RSA. NZ needed to win those 2 close games with in 20 overs to assert their abilities. Like many indian fans, we also have misgivings about WT20 format after India's exit despite good display but we happily live with it until we are on the receiving end.

Posted by Real_Champs on (October 3, 2012, 13:56 GMT)

I think the bebefit goes to the batsmen when bowler hits the wicket its quite simple...

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 13:53 GMT)

i thought the super over was there so that there wont be any tie or draw matches in t20 cricket. i dont see whats the fuss about not like its now being introduce, it was there since the beginning of t20 cricket, should they change the rules because its a world cup. i wonder if new zealand had won the matches if we would of hear any thing from the coach. the fact is the super over is part of the t20 formatt wanna ask wat would happen if england and sri lanka was in the final sr lanka needed 2 runs to win off the final ball, finn bowled and its a 4 death ball is call because he hit the wicket he bowled again and england wins how do u think this will go with the sri lanka fans

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 13:44 GMT)

re bowler hitting the stumps. In the old days, it was a live delivery so the dead ball is an improvement.

As to the ties, I can see a logic to having no super over but would he be saying this if NZ won both games?

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 13:43 GMT)

I absolutely agree with the NZ coach on these issues.

Posted by Jimmers on (October 3, 2012, 13:38 GMT)

Quite right, totally ridiculous to have a bowl out/super over in a group match. NZ are right to be annoyed

Posted by Philip_Gnana on (October 3, 2012, 13:34 GMT)

All all made aware of the rules prior to the event. There is no point in crying over spilt milk. A game should be won in an ideal situation. Even if the points were to be shared, NZ would have not been able to make it. THIS IS SOUR GRAPES FROM THE KIWIS. I would rather see a super over than the points shared. The same happens in Football and it is very exciting as it is still decided on sport and not a toss of a coin as it used to be. Philip Gnana, Surrey

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 13:26 GMT)

I think the points raised here by Hesson, are valid things the ICC should take a hard look at. The Steve Finn issue is a no brainer should be a no ball - enough said.

The super over is an interesting one it certainly does add to the value of the t20 game as a whole. But I think during pool stages of a World Tournament it isn't the most accurate way of measuring or rewarding a teams overall performance.

Surely the point of a world tournament is to have the best and most consistent teams in the knockout stages. In the Super 8's who played better West Indies or New Zealand?

I think future World Tournaments including the 50 over one should have the following points:

Win: 4 points Tie: 1 point each, 1point for Team that took most wkts, 1point for Team with most boundaries N/R: 2 points each.

I think that would reward teams better for certain aspects of their performance. And encourage teams to not throw away wickets as happens at times.

Posted by Balumekka on (October 3, 2012, 13:23 GMT)


Posted by charith.darshana on (October 3, 2012, 13:17 GMT)

not nice to criticise ICC over thier faliure to win the match. In the first 1 against Sri Lanka, New Zealand shows remarkable fight to deny host to an outright win, but they are to blame since the could not score 14 runs required. in the second one against West Indies, it shouldn't have gone to super over decide the result of the match. it was their game but with strange tactics they lost the match. first get your tactics right, then blame someone else if there is a mistake.

Posted by Zahidsaltin on (October 3, 2012, 13:16 GMT)

Look, cricket is a team game and super over is only a two players game. Any team with a single big hitter can win the super over while a team made of 6 stylish batsmen wouldn't win it. A tied match shoul stay a tied unless it is a knockout match. A knockout tied match should be decided on wickets lost and if equal, then decide on scores in powerplay 6 overs.

Posted by abzr on (October 3, 2012, 13:16 GMT)

well played kiwi..........we know u were just short of of luck for ur upcoming srilankan tour.

Posted by Noball_Specialist on (October 3, 2012, 13:04 GMT)

Mike Hesson should have voiced his concerns before the tournament began then.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 13:00 GMT)

I bet if Stephen Finn was being penalized for hitting the stumps, he probably woud have stopped. I agree with previous comments, every time he hits the stumps it should be a no ball and credit the batsman with any other runs scored. A rule should be put in place just for Finn. Remember Emit Smith of the Dallas Cowboys, a new rule was put in place just for him taking out his helmet on the field everytime he scores a touchdown! ICC likes to let things get out of hand too much before they take decisive action. See how DRS is still dragging along!

Posted by jb633 on (October 3, 2012, 12:59 GMT)

I must say that NZ have been very unlucky in this tournament and IMO are more deserved than the WI to reach the semi finals. The super over is a bit of a joke just like the 5 over matches and it is these farces that ruin the credibility of T20 cricket. In a semi final then a super over is a good idea because their has to be a knockout but in terms of a group game it is just a lucky roll of the dice. The 5 over games are a joke as well and the ICC needs to make sure that these are banned immediatley. As to the Finn situation I think a no ball is the easiest way to eradicate the problem, even though I can't understand how the bowler gets any benefit as it must be so distracting.

Posted by Zan46 on (October 3, 2012, 12:49 GMT)

I am in awe with ICC rules of T20 group play. FIFA group play do not have extra time and penalty kicks. That should be changed. Points format should be 3 for win and 1 for tie. As for hitting the stumps on bowlers delivery - same should apply as with the bouncers, except - once is a warning - second time in any of the four overs the bowler should be not allowed to bowl for the remainder of the innings.

Posted by shortsillypoint on (October 3, 2012, 12:45 GMT)

All this sour grapes stuff is deflecting from the need to answer his questions. Is the super over the fairest way to decide a match that is not a knockout and should a bowler get away with knocking the stumps down. Fair questions and I am sure if the same had happened to other teams we would have heard the complaints loud and clear.

Posted by lee_man on (October 3, 2012, 12:45 GMT)

T20 matches must always have a result. That's why there is a super over in every match. That is what makes T20 so exciting...there is always a winner. Teams only seem to criticise the rules when they are negatively affected. NZ should have voiced their concerns before the start of the tournament so that the concerns now raised would have been valid.

Posted by torsha on (October 3, 2012, 12:45 GMT)

I agree with this. Finn should have been banned for knocking stumps off thrice. Ridiculous that bowler doesn't know how to bowl.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 12:39 GMT)

I agree with Gilly4ever on the penalty for kicking over the stumps. It should be a NO BALL with the usual penalties. Any runs scored count, Free Hit in limited over cricket and one run added for the NO BALL.

I am not a big fan of the Super Over but I have come to accept it.

Posted by venkatesh018 on (October 3, 2012, 12:36 GMT)

I think Hesson has a point with regards to Finn hitting the stumps at the bowlers end. If he keeps repeating it during the same innings he should be warned and then taken off for that innings, just like for bowling beamers. With regards to the Super over, I think it is sour grapes.

Posted by screamingeagle on (October 3, 2012, 12:31 GMT)

Might as well toss a coin. lol

Posted by Simon2604 on (October 3, 2012, 12:24 GMT)

creekeetman : 10.43am

So where do you stand on whether or not the Super Over's a nonsense in non-elimination matches? You know, take yourself away from all the emotion and personal advantage/disadvantage, what do you think about it in principle? Imagine you're trying to make a case for an arena other than a tabloid newspaper.

Posted by CricketPissek on (October 3, 2012, 12:17 GMT)

At first glance it could seem like sour grapes, but I totally agree with him. WHY can't there be a tie for league/group stages?! This is even more ridiculous than not having DRS for this tournament. The ICC needs a big meeting about the rules

Posted by npc_cricketlover on (October 3, 2012, 12:15 GMT)

agree partially with the coach... I Agree: Even in T20s a tied match should be tied if it is not a eliminator stage. NZL was 2 runs away from being table toppers Agree that the "Finn" Issue should be a no-ball(with free hit) instead of dead-ball(just like a batsman is given out when he is hit-wicket)

But, lets assume that tie matches are left tie,and let a win be 2 points(3 points is also given in some series) 1 point for tie and 0 for loss.

Then, SL would have got 5 points WI would be 3 points NZL would be 2 points Eng would be 2 points which still means NZL is not fit for semis....

(see WI they are quite lucky....out of 5 matches they won one match somewhat convincingly(15 runs) and are still in semis)

Posted by CRIC_or_CRIC on (October 3, 2012, 12:10 GMT)

Dear Mike.... Get over it please..

Posted by Rally_Windies on (October 3, 2012, 12:10 GMT)


would they have a problem with super overs if they defended the 17 runs ?

I seriously doubt it..

Posted by Sarlana on (October 3, 2012, 12:09 GMT)

I dont like Hesson comments on superover, this rule is for everyone with equal opprtunity. and I agree his comments on Hitting the stumps while bowling, That should not be a deadball. There is no punishment while he doing mistakes. Atleast they should get one penality run when ever hits stumps while bowling.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 12:03 GMT)

Let batsman to decide whether it to be a dead ball or not if the bowler hit his body before bowl....

Posted by No_1_again on (October 3, 2012, 11:56 GMT)

Come'n Mike. After 9 super-over matches experience NZ should be specializing in that. But still lost. If NZ team can take the other team to the super over why can't they finish it. There should be something to resolve the tied matches rather than giving one point each. In that case we can argue penalty shoot-out in scorer is also not the way to decide the outcome.

Posted by AMEERCI on (October 3, 2012, 11:53 GMT)

Another case of Tie. Team scored most runs in first 10 over can be declared winner. This will help more fast game in first 10 overs

Posted by AMEERCI on (October 3, 2012, 11:50 GMT)

Why ICC do not give one point to each team in case of TIE, as being given in other sports like hockey and football. Super over can only be used in case of semi final & final.

Posted by gudolerhum on (October 3, 2012, 11:48 GMT)

@crickeetman - Absolutely nothing to do with being a sore loser, the rule is absurd. Nothing wrong with a tied match in a non knock out game. The knocking over of the stumps needs to be addressed urgently. Finn must change his delivery; he cannot be allowed to continue. It is unfair to the batsman, he gets penalised by not having a legitimate scoring stroke allowed. Maybe a two or three run penalty should be awarded to the batting side every time a bowler does this ridiculous "accident". How did his coaches allow him to get to Test level and not sort this out years ago? It was bound to cause controversy.

Posted by malepas on (October 3, 2012, 11:47 GMT)

Abolutely spot on,,,how on earth hitting the stumps rule is sustainable?? The first knock should only call the dead ball and the following hits should be ruled no balls,,keep calling these dead balls in not right on all accounts. Super over should also be only happened in knock out stages.. ICC needs to put thier acts together.

Posted by bumsonseats on (October 3, 2012, 11:38 GMT)

with regards to steve finn why do you need a rule change when with the aid of the bowling coach should easy be rectified. the way its been decided also aids the batter if he gets the batter out. last year he was falling down after a delivery which was sorted out stop making a mountain out of a mole hill

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 11:35 GMT)

I have mentioned even before that Kiwis were hard done by. Here Hesson is spot on in both his points. However it would have been interesting if he raised this point after the first tie. I think he is too late on his part in that sense!

Posted by omeirzahid on (October 3, 2012, 11:34 GMT)

if a batsman hits the wicket while batting he is declared out (hit wicket). If a bowler hits the stumps while delivering a ball - it should be a no ball.

or if they want to continue the dead ball for bowler then as a fair principle if batsman hits the wicket it should be declared a dead ball.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 11:31 GMT)

@Simon2604, maybe Hesson should have brought up this issue BEFORE the series if he felt so strongly about it?

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 11:31 GMT)

I am a Sri Lankan (Sri Lanka also won one game thanks to super over rule) but honestly I also fail to understand why super over is needed in non-knockout matches, Thats really rediculous. If you look at ODI matches, we have seen points are shared in tied matches, then why not here in T20?

Posted by bumsonseats on (October 3, 2012, 11:29 GMT)

i could not agree more its plain stupid. in America they even have to have football were a draw at the end of 90 minutes has to have a method were one team wins. in Australia rugby league has to have a golden point. when sports people slog their guts out over what in there minds be it minutes or overs to get decision were their team wins a game for it to be taken from them is unjust and sole destroying.

Posted by Herath-UK on (October 3, 2012, 11:21 GMT)

Though Hesson has a point not to use a super over in the non knock out stage (and sharing the point) it will automatically leads to a situation with more headaches ie teams sharing equal points at the end of the super eight and then deciding on a damn NRR;this super over policy is more entertaining and require skills;similar to penalty shoot out in football;howevermuch the football Body tried to change it,penalties remain. Ranil Herath - kent

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 11:20 GMT)

If NZ had won, would he have spoken?

Posted by Crick3tF4n on (October 3, 2012, 11:20 GMT)

if there was no super over rule then new zealand could still not qualify for the semis they would have 2 points behind sri lanka and west indies and had they won both super over matches they would still be 2nd to sri lanka since sri lankan net run rate would be better than them, in fact super over gave them chances to win and qualify but he doesnt like it cuz he LOST it.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 11:14 GMT)

A tie should be a Super over needed..Just taking away the game interests doesnt help anymore...NZ should have been there in SF...Bad luck and ill-rules just plucked away from them...ICC rules should be framed strictly and strongly..

Posted by heywoodipoo on (October 3, 2012, 11:08 GMT)

Just a point to note: even if the points had been shared (all other things being equal), Sri Lanka would have topped the group with 5 pts, WI would have placed 2nd with 3, and Eng and NZ would have been knocked out with 2 points each. Jesus loves you all

Posted by Gizza on (October 3, 2012, 11:07 GMT)

Not sure why so many people are saying sour grapes. It seems to be a way of avoiding discussion on whether a super over is actually needed. Cricinfo writer Jarrod Kimber also criticised the concept of a super over. And he's Australian whose team have qualified for the semis so I'm pretty sure it is not sour grapes in his case! As it is, the super over is a silly time wasting concept especially when you just don't need it. The game is not called Twentyone21 for a reason. The two extra overs take around 20 minutes which is ridiculous. And yes hitting the stumps on your follow through should either be a no-ball or a dead ball whenever the outcome favours the bowler (wicket) but counted whenever it favours the batting side (eg a boundary).

Posted by PanGlupek on (October 3, 2012, 11:00 GMT)

I can see Mr Hesson's point, a tie & sharing the points would seem fair, and probably avoid timing issues for the TV companies, but as a lot of people have already said, everybody knew the rules when they started the tournament. As for the Finn "dead ball or no-ball" question, if a batsman is scoring runs off these deliveries, it can't be that much of a distraction to the batsman. Either they should just let the bowler do it, then accept whatever happens next, be it runs or wickets (there can't be any real advantage to the bowler for doing it), or they should no-ball it. I wouldn't care much either way, but dead-balling it just seems to slow the game down for no reason.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 10:57 GMT)

whatever happened to a tie? 1 of the most exciting things in limited overs cricket is if a team gets to needing 2/3 runs off the last bowl and every result is still possible. knocking over the stumps with your knee should be a no ball, with regards to any runs scored off Steve Finn's dead balls, they shouldn't be allowed, as it was shown during the South Africa test series you can't be given out off a dead bowl so batsmen can't have it both ways.

Posted by creekeetman on (October 3, 2012, 10:43 GMT)

typical sore loser rhetoric... had nz won we would'nt be having this discussion... NEWS FLASH... the rules apply to everyone, if you don't like it enter a golf tourney instead.

Posted by Simon2604 on (October 3, 2012, 10:39 GMT)

Darren Cook : 10.03

Isn't what prompted Hesson to make this statement a separate issue from whether or not the Super Over is a nonsense in non-elimination matches? Or are you suggesting that you can ONLY think it's a nonsense if your team has been disadvantaged by it?

Posted by alimusmani on (October 3, 2012, 10:36 GMT)

@ MIKE HASSON, I AGREE, why there is a need of such ridiculous rule? Do they just want to give maximum entertainment to the audience? IF YES, then REMEMBER, CRICKETERS ARE PROFESSIONALS NOT AN ENTERTAINER... it is enough for allowing 20 overs competition.... no need for further entertainment in a group stage.........

Posted by Deran on (October 3, 2012, 10:33 GMT)

I feel for the Kiwis, it is certainly frustrating, i see there's no issue with the Super Over, the Kiwis themselves have won super overs, and once with Southee against Australia...but this rule of calling "dead-balls" for Finn's is ridiculous, that surely cost around 7 runs for NZ in the game.

Posted by Ozcricketwriter on (October 3, 2012, 10:30 GMT)

Correct on all counts. If a bowler knocks the stumps over it should be a NO BALL, not a DEAD BALL. And there shouldn't be a Super Over unless it is a knockout (Semi Final, Final etc).

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 10:29 GMT)

Totally agree; non elimination, the points need to be shared.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 10:27 GMT)

Super over concept in T20 is not really good enought, time waste, some team may get advantage. Instead there must be a rule of wickets, win for the team who lost less wickets in the same number of overs for both teams. We use this rule in our cricket in the town here. If match tie then we see who loses more wickets, then he is lost. if both loses same wickets then you can judge the inn. of both teams for number of six and fours... there can be other measures within the inng. super over is just a joke.

Posted by Nothingness on (October 3, 2012, 10:26 GMT)

I completely agree with the argument that a super over is not needed in a non-eliminator game or a group stage. Do we have one over eliminators in ODIs? A tie is a result that shows that both teams played equally well on that specific day and so they must share points. NZ was really hard done, since they played exact same level of cricket as SL did (During SL-NZ game) and ended up with no points, where as SL walked away with 2. The exact same scenario with WI.

All in all I think teams in Group 1 played better cricket than the teams in Group 2. In Group 2 SA did not play good cricket on any of the 3 games and so ended with 0 points. India only played well in 1 match (vs PAK). PAK and AUS both played well in 2 matches.

In Group 1 NZ played good cricket in 2 matches (vs WI and SL) but still ended up with 0 points. ENG played well in 2 games (vs WI and NZ), WI also in 2 (Vs ENG and NZ) while SL played well in all there 3 outings. So, if there is a team that can complain it is NZ.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 10:20 GMT)

Kiwis are really a good team Unlucky tht they dint qualify :(

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 10:18 GMT)

Sour Grapes Mr. Mike Hesson. Super Over is Perfectly Placed for Tied Matches. Even Non Knockouts. It is Far Better Then Bowl Out Which is real Shame for game of Cricket. Super over Make T20 More Interesting even in Group Stages.

Posted by Mian.Invader on (October 3, 2012, 10:12 GMT)

well i might be wrong but if there's no super over so what is the difference between a ODI and a T20, same rules just a shortened format?? let it be this way, at least it is more entertaining than a simple tie. What if new zealand had won both the super overs. then they would had no complain as it would have given them 2 points instead of a tie. australia lost the series to pakistan just because of the super over, they didn't complain about it. in fact its a great lesson for new zealand to get the knowledge of winning a game rather making it difficult for themselves and losing it from a winning position.

Posted by Freddy53 on (October 3, 2012, 10:10 GMT)

I fully agree to the points raised by the NZ coach, super over in a league game is completely out of proposition, ICC better look into this, also about the jewellery the players wear during the game? isn't this dangerous to the player? I have seen players hanging their rings in a chain around their necks, some wear chains thick as coir ropes! imagine the consequences if a ball hits the ring against the chest or neck at 145 km??? wake up ICC.

Posted by vasend on (October 3, 2012, 10:09 GMT)

HE is right.. ICC should remove super over in non-knockout games..In knockout games also it should be a BOWL-OUT... HIT or MISS like penalty shoot out in football...this format rules are mostly in batsman favour's. this will give a small advantage to bowlers to decide a game...

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 10:08 GMT)

absolutely .. why a super over

Posted by PFEL on (October 3, 2012, 10:07 GMT)

I didn't realise they were called dead balls. That is absolutely ridiculous. If the bowler knocks the stumps and bowls a crap ball THAT IS HIS OWN FAULT. They should only call a dead ball if the batsman gets distracted

Posted by Mars-Attack on (October 3, 2012, 10:06 GMT)

@Slogger_John - Its not about distraction. The ball declared as dead ball, so the runs scored in that ball also wont be counted

Posted by Subu86 on (October 3, 2012, 10:03 GMT)

Windies won 2 games and qualify for Semis (two games in the group stage were a wash out). . India Won 4 out of 5 games in a tournament they are out of World cup. Justify

Posted by GlobalCricketLover on (October 3, 2012, 10:03 GMT)

It should be a 'No ball' and not dead ball. That way bowler would not dare to do it so casually. Mind you Shaun Tait has been No-balled couple of times when his backfoot touched the outer crease line. No excuse for an international bowler to keep knocking the stumps so frequently. A batsman is given out even if he happens to touch the stumps on losing balance, so how can a bowler be left unpunished for doing it so's a different thing if he slips and touches the stumps by mistake.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 10:03 GMT)

Appears to be sour grapes to me, would he have complained if they had won both games? he knew the rules before the series started!

Posted by HawK89 on (October 3, 2012, 9:55 GMT)

Yes, it was stupid because in the group format it usually goes to a draw with split points to each side. Super Over is only for touring sides, where net run rate doesn't matter. Rules were announced prior to the worldT20, but changed during the Sri Lanka and New Zealand match. Hitting the stumps being called dead-ball is dumb as front foot no-ball being called a dead-ball, where the bowler gets to fix his mistakes. If they keep this up, then batsmen who hit their stumps should be called dead-ball. That is how stupid the rules bend for bowlers or batsmen.

Posted by Bjan on (October 3, 2012, 9:49 GMT)

I don't have much of a gripe about the Super Overs' existence, but at the end of the day New Zealand would still be out of the tournament even if the two matches were registered as ties instead of resorting to the super overs (and thus 1 point apiece to each team). The fact is, we didn't play well enough to register victories over Sri Lanka or the West Indies, despite having opportunities to close either/both out.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 9:46 GMT)

The bowler disturbing the wickets should be ruled as a no-ball.What if it's hit for a four or a six? It would then be very unfair on the batsman.Howzat

Posted by andystat on (October 3, 2012, 9:45 GMT)

Why not declare a no ball rather than a dead ball for disturbing the stumps. I'm sure Mr Finn would soon stop doing it.

Posted by Vikum72 on (October 3, 2012, 9:45 GMT)

A bowler should be within the limits; return crease and the stumps when bowling. If he cuts the return crease with back foot, it's a no-ball. So there should also be some rule against a bowler exceeding the limit at the opposite end-the stumps. Also Hesson has a point about the super over. Its not much different to flipping a coin. It would have being much better to divide the points in the tied matches and select semi-finalists on run-rate if required.

Posted by satanswish on (October 3, 2012, 9:42 GMT)

So NZ guys wanna discard Super Over just because they can not play it properly.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 9:38 GMT)

Is this a real article or is it one of those comic articles people write for fun. Seriously New Zealand loosing in the super over is there problem.

Posted by JP_the_genius on (October 3, 2012, 9:36 GMT)

Feel sorry bout NZ. Agree with Hesson that there should not be super-over except for elimination matches. But, I don't think, ICC will go for it. Super Over is a big crowd puller, though unfair!

Posted by Late-Cut on (October 3, 2012, 9:31 GMT)

As a Sri Lankan, I have so respect for NZ Cricket 'n the way they played. They were way more competitive than England or W'Indies. They deserved a hell of lot more to be in the semi's than W'Indies who almost had a free ride. I wonder what would have happened if Brendan had taken that run instead of caring for that debutant who got smacked on the face. Hat off to you Sir..... That was some genuine class act. Unfortunately It didn't work out for NZ how it was supposed to be. Nevertheless you played some good old Cricket 'n won the hearts of a nation. We look forward to see you back in action pretty soon.

Posted by kam_uk on (October 3, 2012, 9:22 GMT)

The issue of the Super Over is non sense, had the points between the SL & WI games been shared ie 1point each NZ would have ended on 2points and SL & WI 5 & 3 and would have gone through anyway. The super over does bring some excitement to the game which is the point of T20. NZ always cry foul when the lose, I recall the 2009 game against PK and Umar Gul's inswingers. NZ need to address their own shortcomings and not blame others. The dead ball is an issue although a minor one, if Finn gets someone out with one of those "dead balls" the batsman is given not out. Perhaps changing it from a "dead ball" to a "no ball" would be a better alternative.

Posted by St.John on (October 3, 2012, 9:19 GMT)

Hesson is right on both counts. Finn knocking down the stumps seems deliberate somehow. Still, although fans including me really like the NZ ream and want them to do well Hesson must admit that barring BB MC & Ross they haven't the all round fire power to win a tournament. Southee was awful...

Posted by yorkshire-86 on (October 3, 2012, 9:15 GMT)

Bowlers have always knocked stumps down. Australians in the 1930s and Pakistanis in the 1960s were noted for it. Yet in the entire history of the game only one player has ever complained about it affecting him. The south African who complained should be told to put up and shut up, and forget this stupidity of giving dead balls or the even worse suggestion no balls. Clipping stumps with your leg is perfectly legal and should remain so.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 9:14 GMT)

I agree with him on both points, but the timing of his saying this just makes us seem like whinging sore losers

Posted by 12bil on (October 3, 2012, 9:14 GMT)

you are all talking about NZ coach blaming iCC that super over should not be used in group or super8 matches b/c i think if NZ won that 2 matches then they will be playing the semi final tomorrow...but b/c of super over they are now in their home country!but better luck next time KIWI good luck for rest of your future..........

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 9:12 GMT)

Well even if they allowed 1pt for a tie, instead of using a super over, NZ would end up on 2pts, SL on 5, and WI on 3. Would not change the outcome one bit.

Posted by Faizan_Bahadur on (October 3, 2012, 9:11 GMT)

Even if there was no Super over on a tie game,points would be shared by the teams and Newzealand would have ended up with 2 points and West Indies 3.Still would have gone out of the tournament anyway.

Posted by arunrg on (October 3, 2012, 9:07 GMT)

Didn't realize that NZ were such sore losers..

Posted by Faizan_Bahadur on (October 3, 2012, 9:06 GMT)

Thank God there was no tie against England.Otherwise even the most nice team of the tournament would have kicked the umpires for giving a dead ball when the batsman had just hit the boundary.Cant blame the umpires,ICC made a stupid and ridiculous law.This law has to be change from dead ball to no-ball. Simple is that.

Posted by wakx on (October 3, 2012, 9:05 GMT)

I did not understand the rationale of all group toppers being put in one group for Super Eights. This meant all good teams fight out early and leave.

Posted by Stark62 on (October 3, 2012, 9:05 GMT)

Sour grapes and nothing more!!

Super over is a great concept, which cricket badly needed to rival footballs penalty shootout. It's makes the game much more fun and exciting to watch, rather than a boring old draw and a point each for both teams, which is stupid because someone has to win.

If you don't like it, then make sure you win the game before all the overs are bowled.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 9:02 GMT)

@SloggerJon, your points dont hold much logic.

First off, if the wind blows the bails off before the delivery is bowled it is called a dead ball. No ifs ands or buts. The bowler will be stopped before he has even delivered the ball. The fact the ball is being delivered is why the subject of no balls has been approached.

As for the batsmen switching stances there is no rule against the bowler stopping in his delivery stride if he is distracted. It will once again be called a dead ball without the ball ever being released.

Simple fact is Finn is an international bowler and it is quite silly how many times he knocks the stumps. He must fix his action, and it is actually a shame as I think he is actually a really talented fast bowler.

Posted by TORONTO123456 on (October 3, 2012, 9:02 GMT)

Seems like every one have there EXCUSES for the defeat ,they should accept defeat is defeat ,also heard that MS Dhoni also crying for Eng Vs India match saying bcos of rain (5 min rain little drops ) they coudn't grip the wet ball Every one should learn how to accept defeat teams like ENGLAND ,They have accepted week points and not blame for others ......... I LIKE TO KNOW OTHERS OPENINONS ON THIS

Posted by fan2011 on (October 3, 2012, 9:01 GMT)

really suprised to hear the this from the new zealand camp.. it would have been more appropriate had the indians complained (wait they did complain regarding the NRR)

please it was the same rules to everyone live with it..

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 8:47 GMT)

Its just bcos Finn is from England and they don't wont to pressurize him and ruin his carrier. Its simple as that ! Imagine what would happen if this was Malinga?

Posted by DVSK on (October 3, 2012, 8:46 GMT)

Sometimes it seems like the only reason NZ keep is because their management have an attitude problem. This isn't the first time NZ has cried foul after losing like they are just trying to shift the blame and not take any responsiblity for their short comings. Everyone knows why NZ lost, everyone except NZ apparently. Once again I'm left disappointed by how NZ played this tournament. I was expecting big things but NZ completely stuffed up and have proven that they are completely incapable of learning from their past mistakes.

Posted by abhyudayj on (October 3, 2012, 8:41 GMT)

Super Over Should be used in do or die situation and if group matches are scheduled on same day like Supereight when team have equal points then they should be super over between these teams

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 8:40 GMT)

Agreed. What's the need of a super over in group stage. A tie in itself is a result.

Posted by Remoz on (October 3, 2012, 8:38 GMT)

Agreed. On points table New Zealand Performance is Good. NRR is better than WI and ENG. But 4th in the group

Posted by criclight on (October 3, 2012, 8:36 GMT)

Yes icc is wrong about extra over, its not cricket anymore in extra over, its like plating a diff game to figure out who wins in last game of cricket, let tie be a tie. One last over is mockery of game.

Posted by Slogger_John on (October 3, 2012, 8:36 GMT)

I really am comfused by the Finn thing. I had never seen anyone complain about the stumps being disturbed by a bowler before this summer - it seems that SA had seen him do it and decided to raise it as an issue. If the guy is slamming it for 4, I don't see how it can be a distraction. I'd say a right handed batsmen switching to hit left handed was more of a distration but no one seems to get upset about that.

All that said, he should sort it out, but I really don't think calling nb or only saying its an issue if he gets a wicket is the answer. What if the wind blows the bails off when Finn is bowling...

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 8:30 GMT)

I think, ICC might change the way the bowel super over. they should change it into over no. 21 and game starts again at the point where it were at the end of 20th over. with the same batsman's on the pitch again. But in the present way, they bring fresh pair, which are not appropriate to get the result.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 8:27 GMT)

If NZ would have won that 2 matches then i am sure there will be no complain against super over by Hesson

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 8:22 GMT)

This is because all the ICC matches and schedules are running according to BCCI and they have to finish all the international tournaments before Champions League and IPL starts. They always tried not to disturb the schedule of Champions League and Indian Premier League that's why they want fast and rapid result.

Posted by glenny134 on (October 3, 2012, 8:16 GMT)

I agree fully. He may not have complained if NZ won both but then the other teams may have... And if India can get away without using DRS in tests because they think its not accurate enough but everyone else has to then why should any team be forced into playing a Super Over, its not an accurate reflection of what happend in the T20 game

Posted by 4nokt on (October 3, 2012, 8:16 GMT)

Hey why don't the iCC have the whole tournament in an afternoon..a series of 2 over games.... You guessed it...the super over is a load of rubbish.. NZ IMHO have every right to feel disgruntled. What a joke.

Posted by StoneRose on (October 3, 2012, 8:15 GMT)

Agree with TharinduChat, in fact both points are sour grapes. I agree Finn should stop but if the batsman was dismissed would Hesson have had the same reaction? With dead ball being called the batsman has another ball, which could be hit to the boundary anyway!

Posted by Baber_Baloch on (October 3, 2012, 8:15 GMT)

He has raised good points..ICC should answer him.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 8:10 GMT)

Completely agree with the Finn situation....They should be called no balls and not dead balls.

Posted by yohandf1984 on (October 3, 2012, 8:04 GMT)

If your front leg is over the line , its a NO BALL . If your back lag is away from side crease , its a NO BALL . So logically if disturb wickets with hands or leg while in run up , It should be a NO BALL with free hit in ODI /T20 .chapter closed . And supe over should be retained which adds to entertainment of T20 . Irrespective of raisng voices of india , NRR should be retained but head to head results need to be prioritized before it . But please abolish bonus point system in minor tournaments .

Posted by FarmerSmurf on (October 3, 2012, 7:58 GMT)

Nice attempt to deflect attention, but it doesn't wash. A point from each draw would still have seen us fail behind Windies and Sri Lanka. And NZ were desperately lucky to take the SL game to a Super Over, and played awfully to allow the WI game to reach a Super Over. Regardless of how points are allocated for draws, Mike Hesson, you weren't good enough. Period. I feel sorry for Tim Southee. He will cop most of the blame for the WI Super Over loss, despite his outstanding bowling performance in regulation time leaving NZ beautifully placed to simply win the game outright. It wasn't your fault Tim. Keep your head up. And McCullum should have been able to keep his cool and his concentration regardless of Finn kicking the stumps. Blaming Finn breaking the stumps is also a cover-up of poor cricket. It wasn't the dead ball he got out to.

Posted by reversecut on (October 3, 2012, 7:55 GMT)

In regards to knocking stumps/ dead ball. The batsman should be able to choose if he wants the delivery to count or not, as it is a deadball n the first place so it doesn't distract the batsman. If they hit it for four it clearly isnt a problem. The bowler should be warned, third time it happens can't bowl again. If the captain gets fined for slow over rates, the bowlers doing this should be fined also and the proceeds sould go to NZ cricket so we can buy some decent players and pay off Jacob Oram so he can retire and never be seen in any form of cricket again.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:54 GMT)

MIke Hesson is right, how can a bowler who knocks the stumps get away with a wide and a boundary! Rules bust be confirmed from here on: Umpire should call it a NO BALL! It's the only sensible way forward.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:50 GMT)

Steve Finn has to be penalized for his kicking of the stumps. Super over is good for the winning team and bad for the losing team. But NZ played well in super 8's.

Posted by ollyanis on (October 3, 2012, 7:49 GMT)

with any problem like this there is always going to be one side which comes out worse and will be the team addressing the problem. Therefore just because NZ were the team that lost doesn't mean there isn't an issue. Its exactly the same after the sri lanka-india series when india came worse off but in that case india have got there way. And to tharindu the super over is the LEAST important but of a T20.

Posted by WishW on (October 3, 2012, 7:47 GMT)

oh hesson..please learn to accept defeat..two better teams made it to the semi with it...

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:45 GMT)

With regards to Steven Finn knocking the stumps, I think that if runs are scored off the delivery they should count, and he should get a warning. The only time it should be a dead ball is if he gets a wicket. I think its completely unfair that the batting side in essence get penalised when the bowler is the one causing a problem.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:44 GMT)

Agreed. What's the need of a super over in group stage. A tie in itself is a result.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:43 GMT)

I think there is no need for super-over on point stage or pool matches both team will be granted 1 point each. Hessen is very right NZ is just 2 runs short. 2ndly at this level cricket (FINN), if it happens there is no need for giving this dead-ball, simply it is NO-BALL (plus Free Hit). Because these are quite mature and professional cricketer. Finally, If bowler doesn't deliver the ball due to Non-Striker Batsman with advance running for RUN. Again it must declare NO-BALL (with Free Hit) plus Bowler can run-out the batsman without warning.

Posted by reversecut on (October 3, 2012, 7:42 GMT)

Hesson should focus more on implementing decent tactics rather than complain about what happened after his team failed to win in regular time. NZ should have beaten West Indies far earlier, the fact it got to a super over was due to an embarrassing start to their innings. So annoying watching blackcaps shoot themselves in the foot over and over again.

Posted by rameshpoplay on (October 3, 2012, 7:41 GMT)

I agree that super over should not be played in the league stage. One point for a tie will make the final table more interesting.

I also agree that bowler who knocks out the stump 2nd time should not be allowed to bowl again. With this fear will straighten up even Steven Finn.

I also did not like a batsman being out twice - first time on a no-ball and second time on the free-hit. The free-hit was mainly introduced to ensure that the batsman gets back the advantage of hitting the ball well if it was a no-ball, as generally it is too late by the time he comes to know about it. But the rule should be tweaked such that if the batsman was out during the no-ball then he should be ruled out if he gets out during free-hit. This would effectively just give him and extra ball. What say, guys???

Posted by NkSad on (October 3, 2012, 7:37 GMT)

I think he is just lashing out in the first part on the fact his team lost. The the super is a just way to break a tie. Plus even if the was no super new zealand would not go to the semi finals cause they would have 2 points and west indies 3

Posted by superkings_knightriders on (October 3, 2012, 7:37 GMT)

If the bowler knocks the stump in their run-up they should only call it dead if it goes against the batsman (if they get a wicket),

Posted by cyberstudent on (October 3, 2012, 7:30 GMT)

yes totally agreed, batsman is not responsible for bowler's mistake of knocking over stumps.. it should be a straight no ball with a free hit.

Posted by GMFoley on (October 3, 2012, 7:29 GMT)

I agree with Jarrod Kimber- what is the point of a super-over in a non-knockout match. A tie is a thrilling conclusion in itself and should be left as such when a team is not mandated to progress through a knock-out stage of a tournament.

Re knocking the stumps over- easy solution is a no-ball, not a dead ball.

Posted by electric_loco_WAP4 on (October 3, 2012, 7:28 GMT)

Just got reminded of an old saying-'The grapes are...'...LOL.Can't be more true,can it?

Posted by Dannov747 on (October 3, 2012, 7:26 GMT)

It makes perfect sense. I'm glad to see New Zealand actually complaining about something. Two teams play equally well, they should get equal points. It's not fair to one team to scrap their way to a draw, only to lose it in a slogfest of 'who has the better sloggers.' Reserve the super over for knockouts please.

Posted by vish57 on (October 3, 2012, 7:25 GMT)

There is no rationale in using super over in non knock out games; best way is to share the points, at the same time ICC need to differentiate tied matches from washed out matches where points are still shared; ideally for washed out matches we need a fall back option to resume like in 1999 ODI WC where India won a crutical match against England on extended time. Even if we have Super over for knock out games, it should be best of 3 super overs ( 3 batsmen and 1 bowler each) so that the advantage of a team having exceptional big hitters is nullified. Cricket is a team sport, in football/hockey 5 different players take the penalty shoot in tie breaker. Would like to know whether runs scored and wickets taken in super over are included in the personal records of individual players?

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:22 GMT)

I guess it's a case of sour grapes. Even if the super over didn't exist then NZ still wouldn't have made it through because they would still have been 3rd or 4th in the group (2 points from 3 matches). In the case of S. Finn I saw a headline in a piece on the cricinfo website: dead ball or no ball. I was thinking that S. Finn kicking over the stumps should simply be called a no ball. Since very rarely do bowlers knock over the stumps in their delivery stride then I think when it's done it should be called no ball and not dead ball giving whatever benefits there are to the batsmen.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:21 GMT)

knocking the stumps should be no ball with a free hit. Super over is not only fine but an additional T20 thrill

Posted by rmpraveen on (October 3, 2012, 7:17 GMT)

totally agree to the point and seems to be very valid. But, Hesson should have brought this up before the start of WC, not now. Anyways, ICC should strongly consider his point.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:15 GMT)

True.. Mike Hesson is right. In a group match where a 20 over match ends in a tie it should be treated as a tie. How could it be fair when the twenty overs tie the teams, for one over game to decide a winner?

Posted by Masking_Tape on (October 3, 2012, 7:12 GMT)

There should be super-over for every game. Tie is not an "wonderful result" (What the what? really? That's the objective you decided to use? In sports?) People play and watch sports to win, and defeat one another, see a result. That's the basic point of sports. There should be no room for tie. I'm ok with draw in Test cricket. But not in limited overs.

But I don't agree with the tie breaking method. Shouldn't wickets decide the results if it's a tie? It's boring, but it's more fair. For non-knockout games, wickets should decide the results. If it's a knocked out game, then they should have a super over.

But there should be NO TIE in any game.

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:09 GMT)

PAKISTAN ONCE LOST A TIED MATCH AGAINST INDIA BY "BALL OUT" ... I think super Over is better than that....

Posted by joseyesu on (October 3, 2012, 7:08 GMT)

How could you conclude then, if not with super over? Even peoples are agreed with atleast a 5 over min. play. It is sad that NZ could not cross with super over

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:07 GMT)

he should have question this before, not after it went against them lol

Posted by EngineerKhan on (October 3, 2012, 7:06 GMT)

I totally agree with both points. A tie is such a beautiful outcome itself. Why would you change it and Finn kicking the stumps...come on calling it dead is ridiculous

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 7:03 GMT)

I backed Hesson only his Steven Finn hitting stumps point.....

Posted by uncanny on (October 3, 2012, 7:03 GMT)

If he hits stump, consider it no ball !! no penalty to the batsmen, but penalty for bowler. Same as beamer rule. Done twice out of attack, and each time take it as no ball.

Posted by mansoorafzal on (October 3, 2012, 7:03 GMT)

As far as super over is concerned, he is right. Super Over should be in knock out games only. For others, teams should share points.

Posted by ns_krishnan on (October 3, 2012, 7:00 GMT)

I perfectly agree with Hesson. A tie is such a wonderful result. Why would you want to break it unless it is a knock-out game ? I guess it is just to increase TRP and get more money.

Posted by thedane23 on (October 3, 2012, 6:58 GMT)

Mike, I doubt you would be complaining much if the Black Caps won both their super overs... Admit it son, you came out 2nd best in every department, the Super Over ensured the best team walked away victorious...

Posted by TharinduChat on (October 3, 2012, 6:56 GMT)

This is rubbish. Didn't Hesson know that super over are there not only in WC but for every single T20? That's an important aspect in a T20 which distinguish it from a 50-over game.

Posted by Heisenburg on (October 3, 2012, 6:55 GMT)

I agree with everything Hesson says, there should be no super over during point stages, and the bowler should be penalised for kicking over the stumps.

Posted by yashrungta on (October 3, 2012, 6:55 GMT)

I agree on the Finn-Dead ball thing which should be declared a no-ball in my opinion by amending the laws. But I'm sure Mike Hesson wouldn't have been complaining about the Super Over had NZ won both matches in Super Over or even the one against WI which would have been enough to qualify for semis.

Posted by app on (October 3, 2012, 6:54 GMT)

true badluck to NZ and der should be change in format of super

Posted by   on (October 3, 2012, 6:47 GMT)

He has got a valid point though

Posted by Sri_Lankan_pride_50 on (October 3, 2012, 6:46 GMT)

To be honest in regards to Steven Finn knocking the stumps in nearly every game is beyond ridiculous. I think he should be warned the first time he does it but if he does it again, then he should be put out of the attack especially in T20s when he only has to bowl 24 balls. Steven Finn has to learn not to hit the stumps with his knee and the only way to do this is to implement stricter penalties.

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