Mumbai Indians v Rajasthan Royals, IPL 2014, Mumbai May 25, 2014

Why Mumbai got that extra ball

160

In the calculation of net run rate (NRR), the final score, and not the target, is the relevant number. For Mumbai Indians, the requirement to finish the chase in 87 deliveries was only subject to their final score being 190. The chasing team, if they take a few extra deliveries to get home, can still push their NRR up to the required fraction if they manage to achieve a final score that is sufficiently higher - by finishing things off with a boundary.

Mumbai Indians, despite failing to score that all-important extra run off 14.3, had already inched ahead of Rajasthan Royals' NRR when they had drawn level on 189. At that stage, Mumbai Indians' NRR read 0.078099, while Royals' was 0.076821. Had Mumbai Indians just run the single they needed for victory off the fourth ball, though, their NRR would have gone below that of Royals'.

Since they were using the extra ball, they would have needed to get their score up to at least 191 off that delivery. Running two was not an option, as they needed just the one run to win. So their only option was to hit a boundary.

However, had they played out a dot ball, they still would have not been out of it. They could have hit a four off 14.5 or 14.6 and still finished with a NRR better than that of Royals. If they played out three dots, they would have needed to hit a six off 15.1 to bump their NRR up above Royals'. If this had happened, Mumbai would have ended with a NRR of 0.080519 against Royals' 0.074163.

• on May 28, 2014, 6:59 GMT

None of this NRR calculation will help to understand why Faulkner will bowl 2 leg stump full toss in 3 balls... that too after a meeting longer than that of any ones dinner time... phew...

• on May 28, 2014, 5:18 GMT

if the 14.4 ball was wide then extra ball can be given or not? if the 14.4 ball was wide than who will be win mumbai indian or rajasthan royal?

• on May 28, 2014, 4:40 GMT

there were wrong and unfair calculation made where, in 14.3 overs match could have finished. i am still unable to understand that why extra ball needed ?? According to the calculation ,in 14.3 overs there should be a winner or looser since maths have no limit in decimals .........VERY BAD

• CSKDhoni on May 27, 2014, 21:51 GMT

Your saying that at 14.3 overs Mumbai had already inched Royals is wrong. Your NRR is wrong. Actually the NRR of Royals at 14.3 overs was .077023 versus Mumbai's NRR of .076232. Which means Mumbai did not score 190 to achieve a higher NRR within the stipulated overs and RR is clearly the winner at that point. Where is the question of an extra ball? The big guys at the helm of affairs at Mumbai wanted Mumbai to go the playoffs and they in conjunction with the statisticians and umpires said that there is an extra ball to be played. What a joke this is. This is totally unacceptable. I am being fair because I am not a RR fan and I am a CSK fan.

• on May 27, 2014, 15:15 GMT

I think Faulkner to bowl 14.4 delivery for 1 run was the only option. 14.4 a wide ball, MI would have won easily as total would have achieved in 14.3 with that extra wide... final score MI 190/14.3 balls 14.4 a no ball again the same thing .. MI would have won .. final score MI 191/14.3 balls 14.4 for a single run, RR would have won as in 88 deliveries MI would need little extra than 190,

• Cric_fan1000 on May 27, 2014, 12:58 GMT

I saw a few comments saying Faulkner should have bowled a wide. If he had done so, still Mumbai would have won as they will meet their original target since wide is not a legal delivery but it will give them 1 run. They would have scored 190 off 14.3 overs.

• on May 27, 2014, 11:10 GMT

Why we talk of AN EXTRA ball. If that extra ball was a dot, or a wicket. the batting side would have got another ball to face, since there were enough overs and batsmen to spare. The only difference would have been the runs required from that 'second extra' would have been a bit higher; that's all. The decimals would have been rounded off only to decide the required runs to win, in any such situation, since one can not get a fraction of a run.

• shane-oh on May 27, 2014, 10:02 GMT

@Venkatesh Padmanabhan - I can assure you that decimal calculations are used to calculate run rates. Nobody is sitting there counting 13 overs and 3 balls as 13.3 in the decimal sense - it's just a way of easily listing deliveries in cricket terms. Decimals are always used.

• Siva_Bala75 on May 27, 2014, 9:13 GMT

@Venkatesh Padmanabhan NRR is calculated correctly. 14.3 overs means a denominator of 14.5. 1 ball is considered as 1/6 (0.166…6) and not 1/10 (0.1).

• on May 27, 2014, 9:11 GMT

@WAPUSER ON MAY 27, 2014, 8:20 GMT:

You touched upon an important issue. If the required run/s from the last stroke in a winning chase is 1, 2, or 3, umpire takes only that much into account, irrespective of it fetching a 4 or 6 ; PROVIDED the batsmen started taking the run. If the striker stay put at the crease, they give him a 4 or 6, as the case may be.

To me, it is a stupid rule. If it is a 4 or 6, it should be counted as such. If it is a stroke along the grass, often the batsmen run, fearing, 'just in case' if the ball doesn't cross the rope!.. Fortunately Tare could see that it is in the air and is going for a 6. If it was a ground stroke, and even if they had, say, RUN 3 and the ball crossed OVER THE BOUNDARY, both Tare & MI would have been given only the 1 run required for a win. Result in that case, would have been different!

So,I reiterate, if the winning stroke is 4 or 6, it should be counted as 4 or 6. Irrespective of any ifs & buts!

• on May 28, 2014, 6:59 GMT

None of this NRR calculation will help to understand why Faulkner will bowl 2 leg stump full toss in 3 balls... that too after a meeting longer than that of any ones dinner time... phew...

• on May 28, 2014, 5:18 GMT

if the 14.4 ball was wide then extra ball can be given or not? if the 14.4 ball was wide than who will be win mumbai indian or rajasthan royal?

• on May 28, 2014, 4:40 GMT

there were wrong and unfair calculation made where, in 14.3 overs match could have finished. i am still unable to understand that why extra ball needed ?? According to the calculation ,in 14.3 overs there should be a winner or looser since maths have no limit in decimals .........VERY BAD

• CSKDhoni on May 27, 2014, 21:51 GMT

Your saying that at 14.3 overs Mumbai had already inched Royals is wrong. Your NRR is wrong. Actually the NRR of Royals at 14.3 overs was .077023 versus Mumbai's NRR of .076232. Which means Mumbai did not score 190 to achieve a higher NRR within the stipulated overs and RR is clearly the winner at that point. Where is the question of an extra ball? The big guys at the helm of affairs at Mumbai wanted Mumbai to go the playoffs and they in conjunction with the statisticians and umpires said that there is an extra ball to be played. What a joke this is. This is totally unacceptable. I am being fair because I am not a RR fan and I am a CSK fan.

• on May 27, 2014, 15:15 GMT

I think Faulkner to bowl 14.4 delivery for 1 run was the only option. 14.4 a wide ball, MI would have won easily as total would have achieved in 14.3 with that extra wide... final score MI 190/14.3 balls 14.4 a no ball again the same thing .. MI would have won .. final score MI 191/14.3 balls 14.4 for a single run, RR would have won as in 88 deliveries MI would need little extra than 190,

• Cric_fan1000 on May 27, 2014, 12:58 GMT

I saw a few comments saying Faulkner should have bowled a wide. If he had done so, still Mumbai would have won as they will meet their original target since wide is not a legal delivery but it will give them 1 run. They would have scored 190 off 14.3 overs.

• on May 27, 2014, 11:10 GMT

Why we talk of AN EXTRA ball. If that extra ball was a dot, or a wicket. the batting side would have got another ball to face, since there were enough overs and batsmen to spare. The only difference would have been the runs required from that 'second extra' would have been a bit higher; that's all. The decimals would have been rounded off only to decide the required runs to win, in any such situation, since one can not get a fraction of a run.

• shane-oh on May 27, 2014, 10:02 GMT

@Venkatesh Padmanabhan - I can assure you that decimal calculations are used to calculate run rates. Nobody is sitting there counting 13 overs and 3 balls as 13.3 in the decimal sense - it's just a way of easily listing deliveries in cricket terms. Decimals are always used.

• Siva_Bala75 on May 27, 2014, 9:13 GMT

@Venkatesh Padmanabhan NRR is calculated correctly. 14.3 overs means a denominator of 14.5. 1 ball is considered as 1/6 (0.166…6) and not 1/10 (0.1).

• on May 27, 2014, 9:11 GMT

@WAPUSER ON MAY 27, 2014, 8:20 GMT:

You touched upon an important issue. If the required run/s from the last stroke in a winning chase is 1, 2, or 3, umpire takes only that much into account, irrespective of it fetching a 4 or 6 ; PROVIDED the batsmen started taking the run. If the striker stay put at the crease, they give him a 4 or 6, as the case may be.

To me, it is a stupid rule. If it is a 4 or 6, it should be counted as such. If it is a stroke along the grass, often the batsmen run, fearing, 'just in case' if the ball doesn't cross the rope!.. Fortunately Tare could see that it is in the air and is going for a 6. If it was a ground stroke, and even if they had, say, RUN 3 and the ball crossed OVER THE BOUNDARY, both Tare & MI would have been given only the 1 run required for a win. Result in that case, would have been different!

So,I reiterate, if the winning stroke is 4 or 6, it should be counted as 4 or 6. Irrespective of any ifs & buts!

• Philip_Gnana on May 27, 2014, 9:11 GMT

It has been very clearly explained by the author. Thank you. The matter of the 14.3 overs is what caused all the confusion. The various permutations and combinations along with variants should have been put to the public at the outset.

This cricket loving public are not ignorant but had been misled in being economical with the data given to them. The fact that the batsman Ambati Raydu himself did not realise the requirements tells you confusion that had been created...by the pundits. Philip Gnana, Surrey

• on May 27, 2014, 8:57 GMT

Venkatesh Padmanabhan- not sure about NRR. But in RR and RRR they do convert it into decimals. You dont see RR or NRR as 10.0 when 1 run is scored off the first ball or 1 run is required off the last ball.

• ShahJR on May 27, 2014, 8:31 GMT

What surprised me most was commentators and pundits suggesting Faulkner bowls a no-ball. Any illegitimate ball then would not count, yet the run rate would be pushed up without facing a delivery. It was the most obvious thing. Nevertheless, MI deserved to go through as they showed more heart, while RR deserved their fate because they are too complacent.

• on May 27, 2014, 8:20 GMT

The explanation is 100% correct. and only those people can understand it who understands simple maths nothing difficult in it. But I have just one confusion regarding 6 or 4 on last ball when 1 run required.

• Pudussery on May 27, 2014, 6:44 GMT

i think faulkner should have bowled a wide on that last ball. game should have finished right there!

• on May 27, 2014, 5:53 GMT

@VIRAG SHINDE ON MAY 27, 2014, 4:38 GMT;

Yes, Virag Shinde. You are right; and I was wrong. I got distracted by all the obsessive discussions about the number of overs/balls to be played by the chasing team. They are entitled to continue to bat, as long as there are overs and wickets in hand, till they achieve a win. The game stops at that point (when they win); and THEN the RR is calculated. Thanks for pointing out my error. -- Jose Puliampatta

• on May 27, 2014, 5:22 GMT

Mumbai got that extra ball because the scores are level and the run rate is always level.( Corey Anderson is best in opening)

• on May 27, 2014, 4:38 GMT

@Facebook User - very flawed comment.. are you saying Mumbai should have batted 20 overs to see how much they score/were all out on irrespective of RRs scorde of 189 ? IN that case are you saying all T20 matches should be played until death to calculate the NRR at the end and not until one team chases down the others score.. I think you are putting the horse(NRR) before the cart(Scores). Mumbai just scored X runs in Y Balls.. NRR was the ultimate result and decider..

• on May 27, 2014, 3:22 GMT

The way we do run-rate math in cricket is inherently flawed. We think of overs in as a decimal. 14.3 overs is actually 14 overs and 3 balls (half an over). This should technically be 14.5 if you want to represent it as a true decimal and calculate run-rates by dividing etc. Each ball is 0.1667 of an over (1/6), not 0.1.

That has to be fixed first in order to correctly do RR, RRR and NRR.

• kuldeep1109 on May 27, 2014, 0:59 GMT

@VancouverPunekar: Actually if a batsman hits a boundary when 1 run is required but before the ball crosses the ropes, a single is taken, then it is counted as 1 run and not a 4. So there does exist a consistency.

• on May 27, 2014, 0:18 GMT

An innings is COMPLETED only after 20 overs are fully played or all the batsmen had been bowled out, before that.

Run-rate is the result of a game played fully. It can NOT be and should NOT be stopped mid way, when it favours one team or the other. The innings in this case should have gone on till it is complete.

Looking at the way Richardson was playing and the batting prowess of Tare, MI might have ended up even at a higher NRR. But that is not the point. Arbitrary stoppage of the game, using NRR as the central focus is the issue.

Theoretically, at least, RR could have taken out the remaining wickets cheaply with overs to spare (then for RR, 20 overs would have been taken into account). AND, the NRR AFTER the game was completed in such a manner, might have favoured RR. The arbitrary stoppage of the innings, before it was complete was illogical and wrong. Games are played for winning. Run rate is the RESULT. The authorities put cart before the horse. -Jose Puliampatta

• Natrajan on May 26, 2014, 23:08 GMT

Lets get one thing clear. MI did not get an extra ball to achieve their target. The match was not over until the target was achieved. By not scoring the target of 190 in 14.3, MI made it a little harder for themselves by stretching their target by a few extra runs and virtually setting a new target score (with each extra ball they were going to face). Maybe the viewers (and maybe some players like Ambati Rayadu) would have understood better if the targets were explained ball by ball. 14.3 - 190 14.4 - 191 and so on.

The ball Faulkner bowled seemed to stray down the leg side and would have likely been a wide in which case MI would have still qualified but clearly Tare did not want to take a chance of it being a freakish inswinger to his leg stump and pounced on the dolly.

In the case Faulkner bowled a dot ball and a deliberate wide, RR would have won. I believe the same would have been the case with an overstepping no-ball even if he was hit for a six or four in that no-ball.

• No.444 on May 26, 2014, 21:56 GMT

@v1v14n: The match was not over at 14.3 overs. That's the whole point. The scores were level and there were still 5.3 overs left in the game. You don't stop the game when the scores are level and there are still overs to bowl and batsmen to bat. You stop the game after you score more than your opposition. So they played the next ball, and after that ball was bowled the NRR of MI was higher, and they passed the RR's score. No changing of equations. Just the same simple arithmetic that applies to every T20 game. No conspiracy theory here guys.

@ Noman: The explanation is needed because all the conspiracy theorists have suddenly crawled out the woodwork and need to be told to go back.

@ Pratik: The wide would have pushed the score to 190 and the balls would have stayed on 14.3. Read wapuser's wide ball theory. That one makes sense.

• on May 26, 2014, 21:53 GMT

I think the team management of both MI and RR screwed up. They did not have all the permutations and combinations worked out. Anderson and Rayudu should have been very clear of all this when 8 runs were required of two balls. Rayudu's run out was out of desperation to get to 190. He need not have run the second run and just rotated the strike to Corey who could have belted the fourth ball for a six thus completing a well deserved century in the process. The second run also brought in a new batsmen Tare who could have succumbed to pressure.

I completely fault the team management for all the drama.

• LisaDun on May 26, 2014, 21:15 GMT

For matches like this, teams should have their own consultant statistician to help them guide through the qualification process. If the team is South Africa, they should have more than one.

• on May 26, 2014, 21:08 GMT

5. MI and RR Players are confused, Umpires huddle and convey the message to the players , it read : To qualify for playoffs, A boundary is needed for MI OOFFF just one ball !!! which was absolutely wrong!!! - Second major blunder!! 6. The most obvious question i had was Why Boundary was needed ? and the logic behind it! and it was never conveyed that boundary could have been hit even in 14.5 or 14.6 over... - Third major blunder!! 7. In addition to that Bhogle proclaimed : RR could've saved it by bowling a wide, yes RR could've saved it, if only Faulkner bowled 14.4 a dot and 14.5 a wide..

Phew ! and i was Terrified... mortified... petrified... stupefied... by the whole fiasco...

Footnote: Always watch the final league matches of IPL with a calculator :D

• on May 26, 2014, 21:06 GMT

Opening note: I think none of us watched the match with a calculator which in fact was very much needed to understand the proceedings.

1. RR scored 189 in 90 overs, MI needed 190 in 87 balls to qualify for Playoffs 2. Anderson and Rayudu, that was some thrashing from both of them! 3. 2 needed from 1 ball(87th ball)and Rayudu somehow hits it to short cover, manages to get 1 and comedy happens.. he gets run out! 4. RR celebrate, Dravid gets his smile back, Rayudu is dejected to the core! but wait the movie's not over yet.. (this is where confusion arises , it was clearly conveyed that MI needed 190 of 87 and they managed to get 189, so in all probability it is obvious that they are out , isnt it!) - The basics have all gone wrong!!

• on May 26, 2014, 21:02 GMT

okay lets take this chronologically Opening note: I think none of us watched the match with a calculator which in fact was very much needed to understand the proceedings. 1. RR scored 189 in 90 overs, MI needed 190 in 87 balls to qualify for Playoffs 2. WasAnderson and Rayudu made me to skip smokes after dinner , i was glued to TV, that was some thrashing from both of them! 3. 2 needed from 1 ball(87th ball)and Rayudu somehow hits it to short cover, manages to get 1 and comedy happens.. he gets run out! 4. RR celebrate, Dravid gets his smile back, Rayudu is dejected to the core! but wait the movie's not over yet.. (this is where confusion arises , it was clearly conveyed that MI needed 190 of 87 and they managed to get 189, so in all probability it is obvious that they are out , isnt it!) - The basics have all gone wrong!! 5. MI and RR Players are confused, Umpires huddle and convey the message to the players , it read : To qualify for playoffs, A boundary is needed for MI OOFFF jus

• on May 26, 2014, 20:00 GMT

The explanation is 100% correct. and only those people can understand it who understands simple maths nothing difficult in it. But I have just one confusion regarding 6 or 4 on last ball when 1 run required. I rememered in recent WT20 indian team hit 4 vs Pakistann and 4 againt w.ind when they need 1. but in score it counts only 1 instead of 4. but in this case it is counted as 6 instead of 1. what is reason behind it. and what the actuall icc rule is

• on May 26, 2014, 19:55 GMT

Wapuser. And v1v1 I don't understand both of u first d/ l was not in play Mumbai could have still won the game in 20 overs I.e after as explained above and not qualify so no d/l if it would been a wide so mi would have won in 14.3 what was required since wide is not a legal delivery.so above explanation is correct.

• DarshanDashers on May 26, 2014, 19:21 GMT

@VANCOUVERPUNEKAR: Should the team run single when the ball is yet to reach boundary when scores are level, then only the single will be counted and not the boundary. @V1V14N: The NRR is counted on the basis of team's score, and the equation that Mumbai needed to chase in 14.3 overs was calculated considering that Mumbai will make 190. But in reality, there are chances that team will make more than that, which was the case yesterday. So the NRR was calculated using enhanced score, which compensated the use of extra delivery. Regarding D/L, the matches are curtailed to certain number of overs, after which the match gets over. In this case, this was not the situation. Mumbai had full 20 overs and even if Mumbai had chased the target in 17 overs, Mumbai would have won, but with less NRR than that of RR, effectively knocking themselves out of the tournament. So considering the tournament, Mumbai virtually had 14-odd overs only, but officially Mumbai had full 20 overs to win "that" match.

• Dunwall on May 26, 2014, 19:12 GMT

@V1V14N: The match is NOT over in 14.3 overs..its a 20 over match! so, the 'extra ball' you are talking about, is not an extra ball at all..in duckworth lewis situations, a match is over when the stated ball is bowled (say the 14.3 ball), not a single ball more. But, this was not one of those situations, was it?

• on May 26, 2014, 19:06 GMT

@ESPNCRICINFOMOBILE Had Tare left the ball for a wide, they would have won. But Tare had less than 0.5 seconds to judge that the ball coming towards him at 80+mph was going to drift down the leg side. So my best guess is he trusted his instinct + power more than his instinct + agility (to let the ball go down the leg side)

• on May 26, 2014, 19:03 GMT

All RR had to do on 14.4 was to bowl a very wide ball that the batsman couldn't haves scored off of giving MI the win but leaving them behind on NRR. Wonder if the bowler was aware of that while all the calculations were being done after every ball. Crazy stuff!!!

• on May 26, 2014, 19:02 GMT

@Vancouverpunekar So what happens if they take a single and eventually later, the ball crosses the boundary? It remains counted as a single since the game ended as soon as one run was scored. Whatever happens after the two batsmen have crossed and reached the crease doesnt matter. It remains a single.

• VancouverPunekar on May 26, 2014, 18:49 GMT

@Facebook User agree. everything went by the rules and ended perfectly. I can understand little bit of confusion amongst players/commentators since this really was something unprecedented. But you really have to give it to the scorers/statisticians etc who were proactive and on top of it. I am actually surprised how this didn't cause 5-10 minutes delay where everyone including the scorers, organizers got scrambling, firefighting etc.

• on May 26, 2014, 18:43 GMT

The Mumbai Indians couldn't have waited any longer than 14.4 to score that boundary actually, so was Tare's shot was necessary. Had they not got the boundary on 14.4 and refused the winning single, Faulkner could have just bowled a wide on the next ball to end the match, and then Mumbai would have won with 190 from 14.4, which would have put them out. So the apparent situation, that a boundary was needed off the very next ball or they were going home, was correct after all.

• Cpt.Meanster on May 26, 2014, 18:38 GMT

RR should attribute this loss to only ONE man - James Faulkner. What a shame ! I bet nobody will rely on Faulkner to ever bowl the last over of a T20 game here on. All he had to do was bowl a wide yorker and RR would have strolled into the playoffs. Pathetic display and Watson's reaction after that delivery said it all.

• Pateldaku on May 26, 2014, 18:28 GMT

And this scenario, if it had happened in the T20 World Cup would have been against India, especially when Raina's two winning shots were boundaries but only 1 run was given to both Raina and India despite not completing the Run.

Must say two great performances by two players who have the potential, but failed turn up the whole season and did when needed most by their team.

• on May 26, 2014, 18:12 GMT

the situation was so very critical yesterday that even the commentators, some of whom are statistician and analysts, failed to explain the situation properly during "that particular moment" of the match. but at the end of the day everything went perfectly, as far as calculations are concerned, according to the current cricket laws. loved the match!

• on May 26, 2014, 18:09 GMT

I can't believe there are still lots of cricket fans who don't understand the logics of net run rate. It is a very simple logic. Check this out for clarity on the net run rate concept: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/page/429305.html

• VancouverPunekar on May 26, 2014, 17:51 GMT

So on the 14.4 delivery had they taken a couple the second run wouldn't have count ed because the match would have been effectively over moment you tke a single. So what happens if they take a single and eventually later, the ball crosses the boundary? I would suppose it will be considered as a boundary still.

Weird... in former case match is over immediately after they score a single and in later case it isn't ? something needs to change.

Not taking anything away from MI; just questioning the consistency/logic.

• v1v14n on May 26, 2014, 17:49 GMT

After a match is over in 14.3 overs why was there a need to change the equation and give MI an extra delivery to score and qualify??

There have been many instances of team achieving par score under duckworth lewis and losing, those times the rules never says, we give u an extra ball, score this many additional runs and you would win despite achieving par score and losing the match in the first place. If there is such a rule, it should apply to all matches where NRR is the basis of deciding the winner. Can someone give an explanation to this?

• on May 26, 2014, 17:19 GMT

c'mon guys don't say wide makes RR qualify, just give some explanation about wat u said

• on May 26, 2014, 17:05 GMT

Why the explanation??????

The Big Question!!

• Andre117 on May 26, 2014, 16:25 GMT

Now the Royals know how the South Africans felt after we thought we needed just 1 run to get through to the next round in that world cup match against Sri Lankans.

• on May 26, 2014, 16:14 GMT

I don't get it Y didn't Tare leave the ball for a wide? They would've won

• on May 26, 2014, 16:11 GMT

If RR managed to get a dot ball out of the 14.4 ball then it wouldnt have get any further because they could have bowled a wide and the score would be 190 in 14.4. Knowing faulkner he would surely do that. So MI did win at the last momen possible.

• pawaramol22 on May 26, 2014, 16:11 GMT

@SL_Boy You cannot really blame players and staff. If things can be predicated in cricket, no one would be watching this game.

• SL_Boy on May 26, 2014, 15:34 GMT

this shows lack of knowledge of players may be coaching staff also, even if you get out in the last ball you loos around 6 runs if it is a rain effected match.

• ModernUmpiresPlz on May 26, 2014, 15:34 GMT

@Dennis Yes, it did necessarily end at 15.1. You can't just keep playing after you've already won to try and improve the net run rate. The game ends when the game ends. That's exactly why MI couldn't score 2 runs off the last ball. 2 runs was all they needed to have a better NRR in 14.4 overs but in order to get 2 runs you have to actually run them. And after they run the first run the game is over, even if they keep running it doesn't count towards improving the NRR.

@Chidambaram Alamelu Been explained a million times already. MI were 189 off 14.3 overs. If they bowl a wide its 190 off 14.3 overs (why have so many people forgotten that wides and no balls don't count as a ball) which are the initial winning conditions for MI. In fact anybody who says RR should have bowled a wide or a no ball is not particularly bright as it's obvious what the result is. A win for MI in 14.3 overs. The inability to immediately comprehend the 14.4/14.5/15.1 situation I can understand, but that scenario?

• LisaDun on May 26, 2014, 15:23 GMT

@Dennis Harris. MI would not have a chance to score 3 consecutive boundaries in the 16th because the match would end after they have scored the first boundary and in the scenario, they would not have qualified.

• on May 26, 2014, 15:00 GMT

I have looked the comments above and the speculation of bowling a dot ball and a wide. what if faulkner had bowled a dot ball and then a wide. Has anyone considered that if RR had completed the 15th over and then they were struck for consecutive boundaries in the sixteenth over. The NRR would still have been better. The match did not necessarily have to end in 14.3 or 14.4 or even 15.1

• on May 26, 2014, 15:00 GMT

Given there's more to the result than win/loss, should not the batting team be permitted to run a second after scoring the winning run? There was nothing stopping the team batting first from scoring an extra run at any point, after all.

• A000 on May 26, 2014, 14:57 GMT

@Rohan bowling a wide was not an option because at 14.3 MI had 189 runs and needed 1 run.If faulkner had bowled wide it would have 190 run and it still would have 14.3 over because wide bowl doesn't count.So RR wouldn't have qualified in they had bowled a wide too.

• LisaDun on May 26, 2014, 14:48 GMT

The article says: "However, had they played out a dot ball, they still would have not been out of it. They could have hit a four off 14.5 or 14.6 and still finished with a NRR better than that of Royals."

But, as we understand now, playing 14.4 as a dot-ball would have put MI in a bad situation because RR could have bowled 14.5 as wide-ball to win.

• on May 26, 2014, 14:37 GMT

if mumbai not qualified after came that much close, it may be bit upset.

RR not deserved to be in playoffs. it was easy match for them but still they lost it..

• OttawaRocks on May 26, 2014, 14:34 GMT

The author explains the victory conditions and tie-breaker rules well. However, my complaint is that the administrators / commentators should have known and explained the victory conditions to the public before the game began, not while in chaos during the tie-breaker situation. Obviously this situation has never happened before so maybe we can give the administrators and commentators a mulligan on this. However, going forward, it should be standard policy that victory conditions for every match are specified before the match begins. For example, in this match, we should have known that MI's victory conditions were 190 in 14.3 OR 193+ in 14.4/14.5/14.6 OR 195 in 15.1. I know this sounds complicated but I'd rather not be given surprises near the end of the match.

• on May 26, 2014, 14:31 GMT

I feel sorry for Dravid who is a rare gentleman India has produced. There are a few others too. Shouldn't everybody have known about the calculations rather than the mystery around the whole matter.

• on May 26, 2014, 14:19 GMT

@LisaDun had RR bowled a dot at 14.4 and then a wide, RR would have qualified.

• on May 26, 2014, 14:19 GMT

I do not know, why Faulkner did not attempt to bowl a wide ?

• iplfan7 on May 26, 2014, 14:18 GMT

It would have been interesting if Faulkner had bowled a dot ball. In this case, the article argues that MI could still have qualified (which is true). However, if Faulkner were then to have bowled a wide, then RR would have qualified, since MI would have scored 190 off 14.4. So whilst the possibility for this sort of unsportsmanship wasn't a factor as things actually turned out, it could have been (which suggests that there's a flaw in using NRR to determine qualification).

• on May 26, 2014, 14:16 GMT

@TJS07 RR and MI are tied on 14 points, which means they won the same number of games as MI did. MI are 0.04 units ahead in net run rate, what more constitutes you to say MI are not deserving. Frankly RR were too complacent in last few games thinking they have already qualified. IPL is a long tournament and every team has to consistently do well and more importantly when the last phase of the league. Cheers!

• ali14pakistani on May 26, 2014, 14:16 GMT

Big deal, wasting so much time wrangling over what could have been! Its just a game over, once its over. Does not do any great things or mankind, people still living on footpaths and living off offals.

• on May 26, 2014, 14:13 GMT

Totally cricket died here

• LisaDun on May 26, 2014, 14:07 GMT

I meant to ask, what if MI played 14.4 a dot-ball, and RR then bowled 14.5 a wide ball?

• LisaDun on May 26, 2014, 14:02 GMT

As the article explains, it was not a do-or-die situation for MI with 14.4 ball. They could have scored a boundary off 14.5 or 14.6 and still qualified.

But, what if 14.4 was a dot ball and 14.5 was wide ball?

• on May 26, 2014, 13:57 GMT

OMG, to think a wide would have send RR to playoffs, had it been a wide or no ball the Mumbai Indians achieve the target in 14.3 over itself and hence would have qualified for play offs.

The only way RR would have qualified is had MI taken a single of that last ball to win and which thankfully didn't happen.

Please please for goodness sake use your brain before coming doing extensive calculations like this.

• Haleos on May 26, 2014, 13:49 GMT

@TSJ07 - By doing what they did MI deserved to be in the final. Cricket is not played with emotions it is the numbers which decide.

• Haleos on May 26, 2014, 13:48 GMT

@Arun - Dont be so arrogant. Lot of people do not understand. Even Harsha bhogle on Air was jumping around saying they could have bowled a wide. So fans can do the same mistake too. On a side note RD deserved this for his senseless tactics. No sympathy there.

• on May 26, 2014, 13:45 GMT

If Faulkner had bowled a wide or a no ball they would have scored 190 in 14.3 overs still Mumbai would have qualified

• hariknair on May 26, 2014, 13:44 GMT

Ok wide balls wont be counted, but they will concede only 1 extra run which means MI wins the game not the contest, bcoz 1 run wont exceed the NRR with of RR.. or advise if am wrong..?

• TSJ07 on May 26, 2014, 13:40 GMT

I am feeling sad for Dravid and RR as they were one of the best four teams along with KXIP CSK and KKR. teams like DD RCB and MI never deserved to be in last four but thats what happened.MI played well in the final match only and made a backdoor entry.

• on May 26, 2014, 13:35 GMT

Guys its so simple. A wide ball will not be counted . If it was a wide ball then its 190 in 14.3 overs. And mumbai qualifies. Everything was positive for mumbai yesterday , except the 189 runs they conceded.

• baghels.a on May 26, 2014, 13:26 GMT

@Siva_Bala, thanks for your reply and clarification , i finally grasp it now ...@Left _arm _lollypop, i was only congratulating all the Young Indian uncapped players who have done well not all and sundry , when i say Kings xi,RR,KKR put the Indians first what i am saying is all these three franchisees gave Indian players direct responsibilities , they were allowed to bat in top 5 with some either opening or coming one down, some were given new ball while experienced overseas pros were given the tough job of batting in the middle or last 4 overs with hardly time to get set, similarly while in bowling they were asked to bowl in death overs , look at CSK they never gave any chance to Baba Aparjith,Shankar was played in just one match, Manhas who got his chances was never seen batting in top 7, MI playing Tare a opening bat at no.7,DD had KP coming to open ahead of Agarwal and just like Duminy Kedhar Jadhav was never given a spot in top 4 which is position at his state side Maharastra.

• on May 26, 2014, 13:18 GMT

If it is wide or no-ball Mumbai will qualify as the ball is not counted as legal ball and the run-rate will be calculated with legal balls bowled, I don't understand why this is a hard concept for people to understand!

• satish15385 on May 26, 2014, 13:05 GMT

they need 190 to qualify in 14.3....even a wide will make MI Qualify because they chased in 14.3

• on May 26, 2014, 12:57 GMT

A wide would not have secured RR a place in the final. If a wide or no ball had been bowled then the ball would not have been counted and the Mumbai would have achieved their target within 14.3 overs. So a wide or no ball was not an option.

• TRAM on May 26, 2014, 12:32 GMT

Match was decided in that one ball Faulkner bowled to Tare.

With the new batsman Tare at the crease it should have been relatively easy to bowl a non-boundary ball. Faulkner bowled a outside leg full-toss. Even if Tare did not play it it would have been a wide and MI would have won the match.

Faulkner and captain Watson failed miserably. Of course the match should not have gone that far on the first place. Can RR analyse this match video and answer one question: How many yorkers they bowled? OR at least if they bowled well outside off stump (within the wide margin) and set the field accordingly, they would have reduced the number of sixers. Instead they bowled length ball after length ball!

• Darkmanx12155 on May 26, 2014, 12:31 GMT

If I was bowling, I would have bowled a wide to secure a place for my team in the top 4.

• on May 26, 2014, 12:28 GMT

What if 14.4Ove ball would be wide or over stepping no-ball, in that case who would have qualified for play offs!!!!

• on May 26, 2014, 12:24 GMT

Faulkner never bowled a wide because he was not unaware. There was so much things going on in their mind that they forgot that a single is required to win the match but not enough to qualify for playoffs.

• on May 26, 2014, 12:16 GMT

Yes. Even i tried the same... And I too had the same doubt

• on May 26, 2014, 11:59 GMT

im fan of MI i like pollard batting

• sudheer1129 on May 26, 2014, 11:54 GMT

I still dont understand Y most of them are making fuss about this NRR isn't as complicated as D/L method ,RR should have calculated all possibilities of MI to surpass their NRR which they didn't ,they were considering only about 190 in 14.3 , its a simple logic NRR of a team will be higher who scores 195 in 14.4 compared to 190 in 14.3 , this is a simple calculation. More than Watson on the ground RR strategist failed in this scenario.

• Left_Arm_Lollipop on May 26, 2014, 11:52 GMT

@ baghels.a - You need not congratulate any team for "putting Indian talent first". Besides the fact all teams are bound by the same stipulations regarding how many international players can be in the starting 11, you must recognize that the IPL is a global appeal, without the participation of international talent it'd just be a local T20 league. Ask Sri Lanka about how exciting that gets. What you should be doing is congratulating the local players who have done well even when in the shadows of local & international superstars on their team. The Samsons, the Rayudus, the Karuns, the Tambes, the Pandeys, the Bunrahs, the Rasools,etc.

• on May 26, 2014, 11:38 GMT

@chetansanghrajka- If you read the article,when the score was 189,MI NRR was above RR.So by bowling a wide,score would have been 190 and balls same.Meaning MI would have qualifieid

• chetansanghrajka on May 26, 2014, 11:24 GMT

I really dont understand why Faulkner did not bowl one wide, instead of Full Toss . with one wide, score would have been 190 and MI would not have qualify .

• Siva_Bala75 on May 26, 2014, 11:03 GMT

@Facebook User...Once a wide is bowled the match is over, the extra one run as bye will not be counted. The match would have come to a close after the wide is bowled. In any case, a wide bowled in 14.3 means MI will still qualify. The question of RR bowling a wide arises only if 14.4 is a dot ball.

• Siva_Bala75 on May 26, 2014, 11:00 GMT

@baghels.a….Ans to your 1st Q: If 14.3 is a dot ball (i/o one run)…MI would have still won and qualified since they hit a six on 14.4. Ans to your 2nd Q: RR would have qualified if they have bowled a dot ball in 14.4 and a wide the next ball.

• on May 26, 2014, 10:58 GMT

if they bowled a wide ball what would be d result then???

• on May 26, 2014, 10:46 GMT

@ HANKAR KASTURIRANGAN. The rule your talking about is an old rule. You are just bitter because RR lost.

The rule is beneficial for the chasing batsmen to score or century or half century on the last ball of the game. Continuing to bat after the match is over is completely pointless.

If RR couldn't defend 195 in 14.4 overs then they deserved to lose.

• baghels.a on May 26, 2014, 10:04 GMT

Contd... just to finish off what i said , i purely from an Indian point of view would like to Congratulate RR,Kings xi and KKR for always putting Indian talent first and providing them with a great platform.Kings xi and KKR succeeded and although RR failed at the last hurdle in a heart breaking fashion .....but there is always the next season and better luck next season RR.

• baghels.a on May 26, 2014, 9:59 GMT

Okay i need two clarifications, first If Rayudu on the ball he got run out going for a 2nd run had he played a dot ball what would have been the match status then ?? would RR have won then or Rayudu would still have had the luxury of 15.1 overs to hit a six and win the match . Secondly if Faulkner had managed a dot ball which Tare hit for a six and then bowl a wide on on 14.4 overs would then RR have got ahead on NRR , i know many of you have commented that 14.4th ball could have been a wide ... are you guys 100 % sure of that....anyways broadcasters should have explained things to the viewers much better and they could have put a graphic showing MI needs to gets those runs to qualify in a window of 14.3 to 15.1 !!!

I am not defending RR's experimentation but i read somewhere Bhatia and Steve Smith were injured, knowing how Faulkner has been bleeding runs this IPL either of Richardson or Southee should have been played and Tambe should have bowled ahead of Watson.contd...

• on May 26, 2014, 9:33 GMT

Given all the possible machinations - Mumbai would have been better off 'shaking off' runs for the next 4 balls in order to score a boundary while Rajasthan would have been better off bowling an illegal delivery after 14.4 overs to secure a semi-final berth - cricket needs to revisit the garbage law that gives teams extra runs after a win is achieved, if the winning shot is a boundary 4 or 6. Why not state that the successful winning run shall always be scored as a single regardless of whether it was a boundary, penalty etc. Runs beyond the winning run should be pointless anyway. Extending this argument, if the 'extra' winning runs are so important, then why not 'extend' the game till a maximum of 20 overs until such time as MI overtakes the NRR and IPL and its sponsors are happy for Wankhede to host Mumbai in the semis (just like Eden Gardens hosting KKR).

• on May 26, 2014, 9:33 GMT

It was clearly written that MI needs to achieve the target in about 14.3 overs, so the main theme was ABOUT, and about meant approx.... so they were right.

• on May 26, 2014, 9:15 GMT

All are asking why was this not published before and that why was thee benchmark 14.3 overs...guys 14.3 overs is to score 190!!! From 189 if they hit a boundary, its 193 and a six means 195, so the score also changes (not 190)...so they can take a couple of extra balls as long as they make 193 or 195!!! This is basic maths....!!! Even when RR was celebrating, I was thinking, and was aware that MI had just edged RR in NRR!!! Now the article confirms it!!!

Well written article though!!!

• on May 26, 2014, 9:05 GMT

"However, had they played out a dot ball, they still would have not been out of it. They could have hit a four off 14.5 or 14.6 and still finished with a NRR better than that of Royals."

This is not correct, coz if they miss a ball then all Flaunkner could just bowl a wide or no ball and Rajasthan qualifies so Flaunkner had to bowl a valid 14.4 delivery and Mumbai had to hit a boundary...

• Dominic532 on May 26, 2014, 8:50 GMT

Woh Ho!MI pull out a Stunner.Another great game in the history of ipl.Poor thinking by RR making expremients in a must-win match.Likely they are doing in last 4-5 matches that cost them.This not any luck for MI They played best they batted best.And RR is just making changes in the whole season they change players according to condition but sometime it gets harder for themselves.What they are trying to do dropping Rajat Bhatia.I think no one can answer this.Poor RR. MI qualified and going to play against my fav team CSK TEAM TO BEAT.So sorry MI you not going to finals.

• on May 26, 2014, 8:42 GMT

if faulkner had bowled a wide ball score would have increased i.e. 190 off 14.3.... which means 2 runs off 1 ball which was required.... why nobody is noticing that????

• harish_cricket on May 26, 2014, 8:34 GMT

RR showed the good sportsmanship here ... they can easily try to wide ball and give a single run to MI. But at the last MI deserve the win as they played very well from the first ball of their innings. Corey also showed at the right time why he was deserving one of the expensive guy in this IPL season. Best luck MI for the next game.

• on May 26, 2014, 8:16 GMT

All those people who are saying faulkner could have bowled a wide after a dot ball, remember MI could have also run a bye (which is mostly achieved in such last ball situations) making it 191 from 14.4!

• homezweethome on May 26, 2014, 7:32 GMT

Frankly MI doesnt deserve it...... A few maths calculations by MI cannot disprove the sportsmanship a few of the other teams showed through out the tournament....MI's back door push in the last match ...after all the panting and puffs and problems through out the tournament....Cheeky...Back door entry....for a team who have largely looked completely out of knock in the entire tournament.....Frankly MI didnt desrve it.......and hard luck for RR.

• on May 26, 2014, 7:24 GMT

Nice post match analysis.

• bobmartin on May 26, 2014, 6:39 GMT

Simple answer to all the if's and but's in this article... Just win more games then run rate becomes irrelevant...

• TthemasterJ on May 26, 2014, 6:23 GMT

@Procheta C.V. Mallik - no that wouldnt have worked. By bowling a wide/no ball, RR would have effectively given another run away for a ball that didnt count. So overall, their score would have gone up but the number of deliveries stayed the same. Put it this way. They needed 2 of the last delivery to make 190 of 14.3 overs. But they only managed 1 and so they were 189 of 14.3. If a wide/no ball were to have been bowled then MI's score would have effectively been 190 of 14.3 and boom game over.

• on May 26, 2014, 5:28 GMT

yeah, but if by chance 14.4 was a dot ball, then Rajasthan would/could have deliberately bowled a wide/no-ball to finish the game and deny Mumbai the NRR gain through a boundary. Would have been amazing if it came to that.

• on May 26, 2014, 4:45 GMT

Very good post match analysis.

I am sure the mindset of the players at that moment is to give their maximum, which has paid off finally to Mumbai Indians troop.

Hard luck for RR...and lesson for MI.

• on May 26, 2014, 4:44 GMT

RR some how managed to loose many games when they have to just win one and shut all statistical predictions off. They didn't. They faltered at strategical front and put forward their dismal bowling effort and to top it all had a listless captain making horrendous moves.

They deserved to loose it but boy did they loose it in a way!!

I don't know who was making team selection and moves on the field. If it watson, damn him. If it was Dravid, he does not deserve to show any dissent.

All in all RR categorically are deserved loosers and MI the Emphatic Winners...

Anderson.. take a bow... That Million dollar baby, played an innings worth Billions...

• sudiptaasi on May 26, 2014, 4:10 GMT

Those who are saying that its a farce that the target could be achieved even in 15.1 overs, stop being hyper and think for a second. Contrary to what you think, officially, the target was not to get 190 in 14.3 overs. The target was, win the match in such a manner so that MI's NRR is greater than RR's. The target of 190 in 14.3 overs was a simplified version of this target calculated by the media for the audience. Teams are supposed to know better. With the plethora of support stuff they have and the importance of maths in today's games, with D/L and NRR and all, surely they can hire a statistician to take care of all these eventualities. Lastly, the rules are supposed to be fair, not easy. So what happened was perfectly all right.

• Nadeem1976 on May 26, 2014, 3:48 GMT

simple answer. Mumbai deserved it and RR not because RR played bad in last three matches and Mumbai played well. great bollywood style drama in last over. Love cricket like this and some times it takes a six to win a big match like this to shut up all the run rate thingies.

• Siva_Bala75 on May 26, 2014, 3:42 GMT

Of course RR can not bowl a wide after 14.3 But then the author says MI had 2 more balls for a 4 and 3 more balls for a six. While technically this is correct, after 14.4, RR can bowl a wide and lose then MI would have failed to qualify.

• on May 26, 2014, 3:24 GMT

MI was asked to win the game in 14.3 overs and not to tie it hence in the case of equal number of runs the team with superior points tally should have advanced. Mathematically whatever said in the article is right but logically it isn't. Imagine if this was a tie and NRR was not an issue, wouldn't there be a super over so that both the teams get equal chance? This is why I always oppose such confusing rules, make them easy to understand.

• on May 26, 2014, 3:23 GMT

This scenario shows us that cricket is more than just bat nd ball..

• frankx107 on May 26, 2014, 3:20 GMT

Lot of people saying RR should have bowled a wide. But you all are missing a point. If it had been a wide, then it means MI achieved the target in 14.3 overs itself since the wide would not have counted. So that brings us to the original equation and so MI would have still won.

• on May 26, 2014, 3:19 GMT

Everyone saying Faulkner should have bowled a wide - If he had bowled one, Mumbai's score would have gone up to 190 and they would have won. But the ball not being a legal delivery, the number of balls bowled would have remained 14.3 - which is what was required in the first place. Bowling a wide would have resulted in an automatic Mumbai victory.

• on May 26, 2014, 3:19 GMT

Those people mentioning about a Wide consider this: After the run out, the score for MI - 12.3 overs , 189. If JF had bowled a wide that means the score would read as: 190 at 12.3 Overs and that was exactly the initial requirement was. That means MI would qualify and that is the exact reason that RR could not have bowled a wide.

• on May 26, 2014, 3:16 GMT

RR bowling a wide would not have helped. a wide would mean just addition of a run but no addition to the balls. It would have been 190 (the target) in 14.3 still rather than 14.4 so Mumbai still would have qualified

• fan_of_good_cricket on May 26, 2014, 3:16 GMT

RR wouldn't have qualified with a wide. Remember MI had to score 190 off 14.3 to qualify. With a wide, that would have taken them exactly to that situation. I think people are forgetting that the wide is not counted.

• on May 26, 2014, 3:12 GMT

Bowling a wide would have given the match to MI because it will only bump up the NRR which is calculated using the number of legal deliveries and total runs including extras.

• on May 26, 2014, 3:05 GMT

I believe the issue with bowling a wide would be that it is not a legal delivery and would have given the Indians their target in the amount of deliveries they would have needed. It still would only have counted as 14.3 legal deliveries.

• on May 26, 2014, 3:05 GMT

people Who are saying Faulkner should have bowled a wide dont understand that the wide ball does not count as a ball and score will be up in 14.3 overs mumbai still will be the one to qualify..........

• Haripur_Club on May 26, 2014, 3:04 GMT

if he threw a wide ball match will over in 14.3 and hence MI qailify, cause 4th legal delivery of 14th over yet to be bowled so, there is no way of throwing a wide bowl.

• on May 26, 2014, 3:01 GMT

RR could not h ave bowled a no-ball or wide bcuz if they did then MI would have won the game in 14.3 overs, giving them a better NRR than RR. So for RR was to ball a good ball that would not go for boundary and for MI was to hit a boundary no matterr what. Excellent gameeee...the best ever.

• parikshit_Ops on May 26, 2014, 3:00 GMT

Guys, Guys. For those who are asking why RR didnt bowl a wide. I believe, that by logic then Mumbai Indians would have won. Remember, MI needs. So 190 in 14.3 Overs. They were 189 in 14.3. If Faulkner bowls a wide, its not counted as a bowl. MI gets additional run w/o increase in a ball and score becomes 190 in 14.3 overs and they qualify. Guess that should be the explanation for it.

• ashish_rajvanshi on May 26, 2014, 2:55 GMT

All you guys out there... just think. If RR would have bowled a wide on 14.4, MI would have got that extra run that they needed, while the ball wouldn't got counted. So, anyhow MI would have win in that scenario as well.

• 4goodcric8 on May 26, 2014, 2:54 GMT

If RR had bowled a wide, MI would have won. That's because the wide would keep the number of overs bowled at 14.3 (since a wide does not count as a legal delivery), and MI would have reached their target of 190 in 14.3 overs.

• on May 26, 2014, 2:47 GMT

A wide would not have helped since it does not count. It would have remained 14.3 and Mumbai would have qualified since that WAS the target : to get to 190 within 14.3 . The commentators initially incorrectly thought of the possibility but then dismissed it ( even though they made a mistake saying it would have remained 14.2).

• hulk777 on May 26, 2014, 2:43 GMT

bowling wide is not an option as they would have achieved the target in 87 balls. (legitimate balls can only be considered)

• on May 26, 2014, 2:27 GMT

RR should have ended the game with a wide, then there would be way to scored a six.

• on May 26, 2014, 2:17 GMT

Thanks for this article, fixing talk goes off with ur explanation..

• Jack_Russo on May 26, 2014, 2:05 GMT

What would have happened if Faulkner had intentionally bowled a wide ball of 14.4? Why did he not do it? The score would have been 190 and hence mumbai would have won.

But Rajastahn would have qualified isn't it?

• RambunctuousRex on May 26, 2014, 1:37 GMT

Makes eminent sense, this.

• on May 26, 2014, 1:27 GMT

so couldnt RR have bowled a wide ? wouldnt that have got MI to 190 and decreased the run rate ?

• on May 26, 2014, 1:20 GMT

Rajesthan Royals should have put a wide ball and they would've been in.

• on May 26, 2014, 1:20 GMT

Wow... why was this info not made public before the game or at least during the chase.. This was very informative..!!!

• TRAM on May 26, 2014, 1:19 GMT

Thanks for the explanation. Would have been useful if these math were published before the match started.

• stalefresh on May 26, 2014, 0:53 GMT

Makes perfect sense. I wonder if Mumbai knew that they can play a few dot balls in the end till they get a perfect boundary delivery. In either case, one of the best finishes in any sport.

• shiv_cric on May 26, 2014, 0:22 GMT

Good golly. Too much to digest. I wonder if a statistician needs to be a part of the support crew. With matches running so close i wonder if the players need to bear such math in mind. If handling the franchises pressure and the crowds expectation is not enough, this is one more burden on players if they have to play by such a plan, but guess it all is good in the end for the lavish amounts they are paid, they could afford to be mindful of things beyond just cricket.

• TheMiddleStump on May 25, 2014, 23:38 GMT

I knew playing out the dots was a possibility but i just wondered why the commentators didn't realize this. Even if the delivery 14.4 was a yorker, Tare wouldn't run (if the messengers knew the math) and Faulkner would eventually dish up a full-toss or half-volley (given his rhythm) of delivery 14.5 or 14.6.

To push things a bit, Tare could have played out the over as mentioned above and allow Anderson to complete his hundred with a six as this was a high possibility given the way RR (minus Cooper) was bowling as a unit.

Great Game by Mumbai but I got to feel for Dravid and his coaching staff as they were the only team along with KXIP to efficiently try out youngsters and still get results.

Better luck next year.

• on May 25, 2014, 23:11 GMT

This pretty much sums up as to how we tend to sort of generalize everything when we are talking about it as a start. But unfortunately, what we talk about at the start plays the pivotal role in creating an awareness. Like here, all we knew before MI batsmen took the crease was that they need to win it in 14.3 overs- none of these equations were brought into our attention, or we didn't actually bring these into the attention of us and everyone following the match until the match happened to arrive at a crucial point. Scenario-wise, this is a very sad thing to witness, and seemingly the players weren't aware of these intricacies either. So next time, we come across anything similar, we should take it as a duty to educate ourselves in perfect details first.

• shakeena on May 25, 2014, 23:03 GMT

Should improve my math skills before any more IPL matches...

• Elway on May 25, 2014, 22:54 GMT

The explanation of playing dot balls is irrelevant. If the fourth ball of the 14th over was a dot ball, then RR could have won by bowling a WIDE or NO ball next, since the game would be over and MI would get 190 in 14.4 overs and RR would win on higher NRR.

• CurrentPresident on May 25, 2014, 22:40 GMT

beautiful analysis... most people would not have thought of it.

• on May 25, 2014, 22:13 GMT

Confusing, but very interesting.

• pyramix on May 25, 2014, 22:06 GMT

That's right. I did the same math after the game. They needed at least 2 off that ball, however they couldn't have run two because the game would've ended as soon as they ran one. And while they would've had two more balls to hit a 4 (or 3 to hit a 6) to get their NRR up, Rajasthan could've just bowled a wide after a dot ball to qualify (although I'm not sure that they would've realized that).

• Batu on May 25, 2014, 21:41 GMT

What if Royals had thrown a wide ball and given the win on fourth ball?

• on May 25, 2014, 21:38 GMT

hmmm tooo much to think for the poor cricketers out on the pitch.

• on May 25, 2014, 21:28 GMT

thats why the just winning is not important....

• on May 25, 2014, 21:15 GMT

so what RR needed was a yorker, resulting in a dot; followed by a wide or no ball

• on May 25, 2014, 21:15 GMT

Nailbiting - and very interesting. Cricket delivers yet another unpredictable display of draw dropping closeness. Well done MI

• on May 25, 2014, 21:12 GMT

if RR bowled a wide in the last ball they would have qualified.

• on May 25, 2014, 21:11 GMT

Royal should have bowled a wide ball to get to the play-off.

• on May 25, 2014, 21:09 GMT

If MI could even complete the game in 15.1 overs with a four or six then the entire concept of finishing the game in 14.3 overs is farce chasing team gets so many extra opportunities is sort of unfair and not disclosed till last moment as per this article even if mumbai played dot balls and finished game with a boundary in 15th over then why set targets at all

• winner2008 on May 25, 2014, 21:00 GMT

okay, you may need to add something more to this article

1)If 14.4 was wide or no ball, MI will end up in Victory as the score line reads 190 in 14.3 overs

2)Suppose 14.4 is a dot ball, then RR can bowl just a NB or a wide to get qualification as the score line reads 191 in 14.4 overs!!!

Wow, so bad play is still possible if it was a dot ball! But we can say...for a MI win..they have to hit ball outside the rope in the 14.4th delivery itself... Nice!

Am I right?

• dhiraj113 on May 25, 2014, 20:56 GMT

In the event of Aditya Tare playing out a dot of the ball he actually hit for a six, Rajasthan could have one the match by bowling of wide of the next ball, there by denying Mumbai to have a chance to hit a boundary of 14.5, 14.6 or 15.1 balls. I somehow feel that this form of calculating net run rate is counter intuitive and is past its sell by date. Though there seems no obvious way to correct it, one marginal improvement could be to allow the possibility of winning by taking 2 runs when the scores are tied. If that were the case, Aditya Tare could have taken Mumbai home by just taking 2 runs of the ball he actually hit for a six. Some food for thought for the mathematically inclined cricket fans.

• Mr.Lock on May 25, 2014, 20:49 GMT

This perhaps means RR should have bowled a wide after a dot to let MI win but kept a spot in playoffs? The upshot is that MI would have won but not with the required runrate

• on May 25, 2014, 20:40 GMT

but i think,had the fourth ball went a dot,faulkner could send down a wide delivery thus restricting them to 190 in 14.4.but i think the management would not have thought doing so if the fourth ball had gone a dot.faulkner would have still bowled two legal deliveries then(looking at the atmosphere everyone was under panic so they would not have thought so).still could not understand why did they played NAYAR ahead of RAJAT BHATIA. ridiculous tactic by dravid and co.

• on May 25, 2014, 20:38 GMT

Having said that, if MI played out a dot on 14.4, and RR bowled an intentional wide next delivery, that would mean MI won the game but RR would have better NRR, and then RR would get through to the play-offs

• Rahul_78 on May 25, 2014, 20:26 GMT

Yesterday KKR and today Mumabai. Alls well in IPL world!

• No featured comments at the moment.

• Rahul_78 on May 25, 2014, 20:26 GMT

Yesterday KKR and today Mumabai. Alls well in IPL world!

• on May 25, 2014, 20:38 GMT

Having said that, if MI played out a dot on 14.4, and RR bowled an intentional wide next delivery, that would mean MI won the game but RR would have better NRR, and then RR would get through to the play-offs

• on May 25, 2014, 20:40 GMT

but i think,had the fourth ball went a dot,faulkner could send down a wide delivery thus restricting them to 190 in 14.4.but i think the management would not have thought doing so if the fourth ball had gone a dot.faulkner would have still bowled two legal deliveries then(looking at the atmosphere everyone was under panic so they would not have thought so).still could not understand why did they played NAYAR ahead of RAJAT BHATIA. ridiculous tactic by dravid and co.

• Mr.Lock on May 25, 2014, 20:49 GMT

This perhaps means RR should have bowled a wide after a dot to let MI win but kept a spot in playoffs? The upshot is that MI would have won but not with the required runrate

• dhiraj113 on May 25, 2014, 20:56 GMT

In the event of Aditya Tare playing out a dot of the ball he actually hit for a six, Rajasthan could have one the match by bowling of wide of the next ball, there by denying Mumbai to have a chance to hit a boundary of 14.5, 14.6 or 15.1 balls. I somehow feel that this form of calculating net run rate is counter intuitive and is past its sell by date. Though there seems no obvious way to correct it, one marginal improvement could be to allow the possibility of winning by taking 2 runs when the scores are tied. If that were the case, Aditya Tare could have taken Mumbai home by just taking 2 runs of the ball he actually hit for a six. Some food for thought for the mathematically inclined cricket fans.

• winner2008 on May 25, 2014, 21:00 GMT

okay, you may need to add something more to this article

1)If 14.4 was wide or no ball, MI will end up in Victory as the score line reads 190 in 14.3 overs

2)Suppose 14.4 is a dot ball, then RR can bowl just a NB or a wide to get qualification as the score line reads 191 in 14.4 overs!!!

Wow, so bad play is still possible if it was a dot ball! But we can say...for a MI win..they have to hit ball outside the rope in the 14.4th delivery itself... Nice!

Am I right?

• on May 25, 2014, 21:09 GMT

If MI could even complete the game in 15.1 overs with a four or six then the entire concept of finishing the game in 14.3 overs is farce chasing team gets so many extra opportunities is sort of unfair and not disclosed till last moment as per this article even if mumbai played dot balls and finished game with a boundary in 15th over then why set targets at all

• on May 25, 2014, 21:11 GMT

Royal should have bowled a wide ball to get to the play-off.

• on May 25, 2014, 21:12 GMT

if RR bowled a wide in the last ball they would have qualified.

• on May 25, 2014, 21:15 GMT

Nailbiting - and very interesting. Cricket delivers yet another unpredictable display of draw dropping closeness. Well done MI