Kolkata Knight Riders v Rajasthan Royals, IPL, Cape Town April 24, 2009

Two overs too many

The Super Over ruined what had been the perfect match, with all the elements of a classic sporting contest
56

So what's wrong with a tie?

Arguably, the Super Over is far less unsatisfactory than the farce of a Bowlout. It is at least a contest between bat and ball. But do we really need it?

The tie is the rarest result in cricket and, in many ways, the most beautiful. And just. Often it is the true measure of how close the game had been, and how equal - good and bad - the teams were.

I am not a fan of tie-breakers in football either. It reduces the game to a skill of sharp-shooting. But often they happen to the most exciting part of a dreary match, as drawn football games are, with defensive teams playing for the tie-breaker.

The tie is different from a draw. A drawn cricket match can be exciting too, but a tie is invariably thrilling. And the finish often leaves the spectator emotionally spent. Fulfilled but spent. It's a unique combination of regret, relief and exhilaration. For a while you replay that moment that could have won your team the match, and then realise that it could have been lost too. And then you come to the realisation that you have seen the perfect finish, and the rest of the evening, or night, can be spent in that warm glow.

The tie-breaker feels like a charade, a contrived climax after the grand climax. It can produce a high for fans of the winning team but it's a temporary one.

I watched India and Pakistan play out a tie-breaker in the World Twenty20 in 2007 and it left me cold. It had been a dramatic match with plenty of twists and turns. Batting first, India had managed only 141 but reduced Pakistan to 103 for 6 in the 18th over. Misbah ul-Haq and Yasir Arafat then belted 27 off the next eight balls to leave Pakistan needing 12 off the last six. The match ended with a dramatic run-out in the last ball with the scores level.

Or so I would have liked it to end. But then a Bowlout ensued, and Robin Uthappa, Harbhajan Singh and Virender Sehwag proceeded to earn India a win by hitting the stumps after all three Pakistani bowlers - Umar Gul, Arafat, and Shahid Afridi - failed to the find the target.

Thursday's match between Rajasthan Royals and Kolkata Knight Riders was the best of the tournament so far. It had all the elements that make a great Twenty20 match: dramatic fluctuations, outstanding individual performances, excellent tactical manoeuvres, a couple of stirring human stories and a great finish.

Rajasthan stumbled at the start, recovered through an adventurous innings by one of their heroes of last season, were pegged back again by a mystery spinner playing his first match of the season and finished the innings with a flourish with an IPL debutant thrashing two sixes and a four in the final over with his charismatic captain looking on approvingly from the other end.

Kolkata's innings started with a twist, a spinner and a dibbly-dobbler opening the attack. The captain fell early but the cavalier, who hits sixes as casually as most batsmen tap singles, was looking like running away with match when the ageing magician got him to spoon one to his best fielder. Then, with match slipping away, a besieged folk hero produced two stunning sixes but, just when the matter seemed to have been sealed, a rookie who had been playing tennis-ball cricket in obscurity till he was discovered by Rajasthan in a talent-hunt survived a first-ball wide to bowl six impeccable balls to force a tie.

Who needed more? I don't know about you, but the Super Over ruined for me what had been the perfect match till then.

PS: As some readers have pointed out, I can see and live with tie-breakers in knock-out matches. One-day cricket has survived without it, though, and in World Cups there is a provision of deciding the winner based on previous results in the competition. In the 1999 World Cup, Australia went through to the final after a tied semi-final on the virtue of having beaten South Africa before. (Imagine that match being decided by a tie-breaker.) But there is no compelling reason for not letting a tie stand in bilateral series or in preliminary rounds.

Sambit Bal is the editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Branna on April 26, 2009, 5:24 GMT

    Sambit I agree 100% with you. Daniel Vettori phrased it quite eloquently - "the game is 20/20 not 1/1. Super overs may be exciting but if you use them in preliminary matches they won't be as exciting when it comes to the semis and other knockout matches. Save it for the big games. If both teams play evenly in a preliminary match then both teams deserve to take away an equal number of points from the game. All other sports, including other forms of cricket accept ties as an acceptable result. Why can't T20 be the same?

    Twenty twenty cricket at the moment is already exciting enough at the moment. However who knows, maybe with time its popularity may wane like what happened to one-day cricket. So why the over-kill now? When people get bored of the format then bring in new innovations, don't change what the people currently love. I saw no to the super-over

  • Vivek.Bhandari on April 25, 2009, 5:40 GMT

    A really great articly by Sambit. The icing on the cake was the description of the RR-KKR match. Those 3 paragraphs are just words of wisdom.

  • Alan James Sanders on April 25, 2009, 5:32 GMT

    I completely agree with you. In virtually every other ball sport in the world- soccer, rugby, AFL, etc- ties are acceptable results. In fact, even swimmers, sprinters and race horses can finish in dead heats. That tie that got Australia into the '99 WC final was the greatest ODI game ever played, and the Tied Tests at Brisbane and Madras have gone down in cricketing folklore. The Super Over's just superficial and and opens the result up either to pure luck, or the winning team having one player better than someone on the opposition. Do we really want to open up the result to one over where luck decides the winner after both innings are finished? Do we really want to declare one team a winner because Yusuf Pathan (who's just ONE member of the victorious team) is a better hitter than Chris Gayle (who's also just ONE member of the losing side)? If we were to decide cricket matches like that, then there's not much point in either side turning up to play other than to exchange team sheets

  • drinks.break on April 25, 2009, 5:04 GMT

    There is another problem with the super over which makes it different from tie-breakers in other sports: that is the issue of momentum. In soccer, all the players are involved in the same skill set, so nothing changes when it comes to the penalty shootout. In cricket, batting and fielding are entirely different skill sets. The bowlers in particular need a certain amount of time running around in the field before they are fully warmed up and performing at their best (I'm sure that's partly why Mendis got the job - it's theoretically easier for a spinner). The batsmen, on the other hand, just need to be loosened up. So a super over will always disadvantage the team that bowled in the first innings - they have to come out and immediately switch on in the field, while the other team is already in the groove. I say leave it as a tie, but change the point system: 3 for a win, 2 for a tie, 1 for a draw.

  • basshred on April 25, 2009, 3:11 GMT

    As Daniel Vettori said, the game's 20-20 not 1-1: the super over is unfair (far superior to the bowl outs though). I feel for a game decided through a super over, the losing team should get at least 1 point, as it happens in ice hockey games in the NHL, where a team losing in over time (after the main match is tied) gets one point.

  • idontknowidontcare on April 25, 2009, 2:54 GMT

    Great. Finally someone thinks beyond money. However, I still find the Tie Breaker far less farcical than the Duckworth Lewis "system" of deciding "winners" - in a 20 over game, Team 1 bats for 12 overs, Team 2 bats for 5 overs, and a winner is not decided but "calculated".

    2 questions: 1. With floodlights available, why not play out the full game? 2. If the game cannot be completed in the stipulated time, why not accept the result as a draw, as in Test Cricket? Remember the greatest rain-rule farce, the 1992 World Cup semi-final? The heaven would not have collapsed if the floodlights were left on for another 10 minutes to allow the game to complete.

  • Vijay_P_S on April 25, 2009, 1:44 GMT

    As far as the players are concerned it is a bit unfair that the result is decided based on the super over. But from the point of view of the fans it provides that extra bit of thrilling experience. Being a fan, I would vote for super over.

  • outsiders on April 24, 2009, 18:51 GMT

    Honestly, if you find T20 exciting I can't see why you'd complain about the 'super over'. It gives the viewers complete value for their money - it just adds 'masala' to whats already the spiciest version of cricket.Who needed more ? Well, apart from you Sambit, I don't think any cricket fan would mind another 15 minutes of super exciting cricket. The best part is - it gives everyone a fair chance, its definitely a better means of deciding the winner than a penalty shoot out.

  • kanindian on April 24, 2009, 17:51 GMT

    Sir, I don't find anything wrong with the tie breaker system to decide a clear winner in a game in any sport. But the awarding of point is not the correct way to reflect the excitement and hard work of the losing team in the game. Like the National Hockey League in North America they too have the league games to decide winners by tie breaker system, but the losing team does not go empty handed. They are awarded one point. The same system should have been followed here which I am sure even the elite of the IPL would agree.

  • royapuram_rockers on April 24, 2009, 16:45 GMT

    Totally agree with you Mr.Bal.A tie is a tie and is uneccesary in round robin stages.It was a beautiful game at the end of the day.Watching Warne and Ganguly trying to outwit each other,looked like an two Greek warriors on the battlefield.In the end both ended at par.Cricket goes beyond results and points my dear friends its about the players.And btw I saw some one say the 1st game was better.Why is that modern day fans love only the big scores??Atleast KKR din't fold up like CSK,who have no one but Raina and Haydos in the batting lineup(sorry to Badri though,who hardly gets time to bat).

  • Branna on April 26, 2009, 5:24 GMT

    Sambit I agree 100% with you. Daniel Vettori phrased it quite eloquently - "the game is 20/20 not 1/1. Super overs may be exciting but if you use them in preliminary matches they won't be as exciting when it comes to the semis and other knockout matches. Save it for the big games. If both teams play evenly in a preliminary match then both teams deserve to take away an equal number of points from the game. All other sports, including other forms of cricket accept ties as an acceptable result. Why can't T20 be the same?

    Twenty twenty cricket at the moment is already exciting enough at the moment. However who knows, maybe with time its popularity may wane like what happened to one-day cricket. So why the over-kill now? When people get bored of the format then bring in new innovations, don't change what the people currently love. I saw no to the super-over

  • Vivek.Bhandari on April 25, 2009, 5:40 GMT

    A really great articly by Sambit. The icing on the cake was the description of the RR-KKR match. Those 3 paragraphs are just words of wisdom.

  • Alan James Sanders on April 25, 2009, 5:32 GMT

    I completely agree with you. In virtually every other ball sport in the world- soccer, rugby, AFL, etc- ties are acceptable results. In fact, even swimmers, sprinters and race horses can finish in dead heats. That tie that got Australia into the '99 WC final was the greatest ODI game ever played, and the Tied Tests at Brisbane and Madras have gone down in cricketing folklore. The Super Over's just superficial and and opens the result up either to pure luck, or the winning team having one player better than someone on the opposition. Do we really want to open up the result to one over where luck decides the winner after both innings are finished? Do we really want to declare one team a winner because Yusuf Pathan (who's just ONE member of the victorious team) is a better hitter than Chris Gayle (who's also just ONE member of the losing side)? If we were to decide cricket matches like that, then there's not much point in either side turning up to play other than to exchange team sheets

  • drinks.break on April 25, 2009, 5:04 GMT

    There is another problem with the super over which makes it different from tie-breakers in other sports: that is the issue of momentum. In soccer, all the players are involved in the same skill set, so nothing changes when it comes to the penalty shootout. In cricket, batting and fielding are entirely different skill sets. The bowlers in particular need a certain amount of time running around in the field before they are fully warmed up and performing at their best (I'm sure that's partly why Mendis got the job - it's theoretically easier for a spinner). The batsmen, on the other hand, just need to be loosened up. So a super over will always disadvantage the team that bowled in the first innings - they have to come out and immediately switch on in the field, while the other team is already in the groove. I say leave it as a tie, but change the point system: 3 for a win, 2 for a tie, 1 for a draw.

  • basshred on April 25, 2009, 3:11 GMT

    As Daniel Vettori said, the game's 20-20 not 1-1: the super over is unfair (far superior to the bowl outs though). I feel for a game decided through a super over, the losing team should get at least 1 point, as it happens in ice hockey games in the NHL, where a team losing in over time (after the main match is tied) gets one point.

  • idontknowidontcare on April 25, 2009, 2:54 GMT

    Great. Finally someone thinks beyond money. However, I still find the Tie Breaker far less farcical than the Duckworth Lewis "system" of deciding "winners" - in a 20 over game, Team 1 bats for 12 overs, Team 2 bats for 5 overs, and a winner is not decided but "calculated".

    2 questions: 1. With floodlights available, why not play out the full game? 2. If the game cannot be completed in the stipulated time, why not accept the result as a draw, as in Test Cricket? Remember the greatest rain-rule farce, the 1992 World Cup semi-final? The heaven would not have collapsed if the floodlights were left on for another 10 minutes to allow the game to complete.

  • Vijay_P_S on April 25, 2009, 1:44 GMT

    As far as the players are concerned it is a bit unfair that the result is decided based on the super over. But from the point of view of the fans it provides that extra bit of thrilling experience. Being a fan, I would vote for super over.

  • outsiders on April 24, 2009, 18:51 GMT

    Honestly, if you find T20 exciting I can't see why you'd complain about the 'super over'. It gives the viewers complete value for their money - it just adds 'masala' to whats already the spiciest version of cricket.Who needed more ? Well, apart from you Sambit, I don't think any cricket fan would mind another 15 minutes of super exciting cricket. The best part is - it gives everyone a fair chance, its definitely a better means of deciding the winner than a penalty shoot out.

  • kanindian on April 24, 2009, 17:51 GMT

    Sir, I don't find anything wrong with the tie breaker system to decide a clear winner in a game in any sport. But the awarding of point is not the correct way to reflect the excitement and hard work of the losing team in the game. Like the National Hockey League in North America they too have the league games to decide winners by tie breaker system, but the losing team does not go empty handed. They are awarded one point. The same system should have been followed here which I am sure even the elite of the IPL would agree.

  • royapuram_rockers on April 24, 2009, 16:45 GMT

    Totally agree with you Mr.Bal.A tie is a tie and is uneccesary in round robin stages.It was a beautiful game at the end of the day.Watching Warne and Ganguly trying to outwit each other,looked like an two Greek warriors on the battlefield.In the end both ended at par.Cricket goes beyond results and points my dear friends its about the players.And btw I saw some one say the 1st game was better.Why is that modern day fans love only the big scores??Atleast KKR din't fold up like CSK,who have no one but Raina and Haydos in the batting lineup(sorry to Badri though,who hardly gets time to bat).

  • PratUSA on April 24, 2009, 15:32 GMT

    Since the first time I learned of bowl-out, I hated it. Absolutely nonsensical. Modern cricket is getting too obsessed with so called 'result'. I always argue that a 'draw' is also a result. I can still replay Madras tie test in my mind 23 years later. Few things can be more thrilling than a last wicket pair battling on 5th evening of a test and earning a DRAW. I wonder if people cherish the journey towards the 'outcome' or outcome itself. Was watching last few overs more exciting or just knowing that Royals won? I am also in complete disagreement with the rule of awarding the win to the team that hit more sixes, followed by more fours. How you score runs is irrelevant. A win should be awarded to team that lost fewer wickets if at all every thing else is equal and it's a knock-out match. Test Cricket is my first love and I embrace innovations like T20 as well but sad to see such changes those don't do any justice to anyone.

  • vatsap on April 24, 2009, 15:12 GMT

    Old World /New World ... we had the ridiculous event of a six over game, where most of us in Gully cricket would play atleast 10 overs. 20-20 is death knell to everything classical, in the name of entertainment. Let us not even talk about a one over tie breaker which took half an hour from start to finish.

  • sweetwasabi on April 24, 2009, 14:28 GMT

    we wouldn't have winners, if there weren't any losers.

  • TITIT on April 24, 2009, 14:24 GMT

    i am against it in qualifying matches but it is a best thing in knockout stages. tied matches are rare in cricket and i want to see more tied matches in cricket

  • RAGHAVER on April 24, 2009, 14:15 GMT

    Well it was certainly a great match and it deserved a result. Both the teams had fought so hard for it so there should have been a winner. Sambit Bal should know that each team has fought so valiantly and tried so hard to take their sides home so some side certainly deserves to win. The Knight Riders will surely be unhappy with the result as they performed very well but tumbled in the last overs of each innings. But as you know Cricket's a fair game and the best team on the night wins the match.

  • KiQass on April 24, 2009, 14:05 GMT

    Old world thinking, is what it is. Its the same kind of thinking that make people say T20 is not real cricket. Its not only these, but I'm predicting you will not like any new implementation in this game. Like the umpire decision review..bet you are against that too. Please, being an editor of what i consider the best cricketing website, one that a lot of people read, you should be more open minded, take a look at the bigger picture. I hope this comment isn't just for other viewers to read,.. hope you read it too.

  • bludayvil on April 24, 2009, 13:58 GMT

    Sambit's argument against the Super Overs is based on emotion - he finds them "contrived" and "like a charade." Moreover he concedes these can be used in knock-out matches. So why not in the round-robin?

    Like most posters here, I believe the two Super Overs certainly added to the tension, drama and excitement of the game. Both teams had done enough to deserve a win and RR took the win fair and square. I am a KKR supporter but couldn't have asked for anything more from that game.

    Like the SOs? Sounds like the "ayes" have it...

  • Sri7 on April 24, 2009, 13:54 GMT

    Twenty20 is about quick reactions, overcoming intense pressure, delivering under intense pressure; its about executing your plans and to change your plans instantly as needed. Super Over only takes all these a step further. Draw in Twenty20 is useless; Twenty20 isn't about cricketing excellence its about cricketing smartness. I am just real glad that bowl-out has been booted-out and equally glad that Super Over is in place.

  • jokerbala on April 24, 2009, 13:51 GMT

    I am not "spent" after watching a tie unlike Mr.Sambit Bal.In fact I was salivating at the prospect of superover even before the match was tied.And for all those for a tie,would you leave federer vs nadal at 6-6?(even in a davis cup)

  • rachikhalkar on April 24, 2009, 13:51 GMT

    "....rest of the evening, or night, can be spent in that warm glow." Thanks to Sambit for putting my feelings in words. My legs always get pulled for watching a drown test match or getting up early in the morning to watch a drown/washed out/lost match. But I watch the match for this warm glow. and thankfully for last couple of years, its more of this glow than disappointment - as Team India is on the success voyage.

  • arpanghatak on April 24, 2009, 13:51 GMT

    Well, I agree to the part that a league match need'nt have a Tie Breaker. Especially because we already are having two team being awarded a point apiece for wash-outs. However, at least this form of tie-breaker is the most fair contest between bat and ball.

  • Sandsie on April 24, 2009, 13:48 GMT

    Spot on! There's nothing wrong with leaving a tie as a tie.

  • HundredPercentBarcelonista on April 24, 2009, 13:21 GMT

    I'm sick of seeing this old-world thinking we've inherited from the British. The world is driven by results. There is no room for sitting on the fence when it comes to anything if you want to be successful. Wake up Sambit, these aren't the Victorian times when people would sit and sip tea all day and revel in cricket's ability to not produce a winner after hundreds of overs. While you're entitled to feel hard-done by tie-breakers, they're here to stay and I hope the ICC incorporates them in ODIs as well.

  • Harshtmm on April 24, 2009, 12:58 GMT

    I disagree with Sambit 200% need I say more.

  • nashdwaj on April 24, 2009, 11:46 GMT

    I absolutely agree with Samit. So what is wrong with a tie ?!!

    Why does one team have to win and other return back thinking they lost, instead we all have won watching such a beautiful match where the runs scored exactly equal and end up being a tie...what a beauty...back and forth change in momemtum, shrewd captaincy by Warne, just steely resolve by Ganguly, savage hitting from Yosuf and Gayle,,,and then at the end of it we achieve equalibrium...a tie. Really tie result was a beauty and very satisfaying,,,instead I feel now points unfairly given to RR. I prefer match being tied and rightfully the points being shared between the teams especially in the league stage where one team need not win for tournament to progress.

  • Fireballers on April 24, 2009, 11:43 GMT

    Sambit Bal needs to re-evaluate. Maybe Sambit was supporting KKR, in which case his comments might be justified. BUt there was absolutely nothing wrong in the way the match ended yesterday. Since all highs are temporary, I don't know what kind of "high" Sambit wanted the fans to feel. The super over is a justified result yielder. Had they tied that then it would've really become farcifical to elect a winner based on most sixes scored. So thank the lord we didn't go that far. For the fans the greatest disappointment is "no-result" and the tie is essentially that.

  • hattrick_thug on April 24, 2009, 11:34 GMT

    A true travesty would have been to award them each one point assign the game to the scrapheap of rained-off games. It is time to get used to the fact that, by definition, T20 needs a result. The coin toss is mindless, the bowl-off is pointless, but the Super Over is at least bat vs. ball - I don't have a quarrel with this solution at all. For thrilling forms of no-result, we'll always have Test cricket.

  • scg1313 on April 24, 2009, 11:11 GMT

    I agree with Sambit & Harsh. Tie breakers do not necessarily have to be applied to league matches. If indeed it was so necessary, it could have been applied to Rajasthan & Mumbai abandoned game as well. It would have been alright had it been a knock out stage. And Joy, I hope you were not serious about what you wrote.Either that, or you don't know the meaning of the word professionalism. Sambit is an objective writer at the best of times. Such comments are degrading for Indians, especially if read by foreigners. In any case, to the best of my knowledge & to satisfy your curiosity Sambit is not from Bengal. :)

  • GlobalCricketLover on April 24, 2009, 10:42 GMT

    I can't see what this fuss is all about. I enjoyed the match and the super overs as well. Yes, I hated the bowl out but prefer this tie-breaker than a tie. In fact I feel that every match should always have a winner. I hope they put some rules in test matches whereby you have no choice but to win or lose it - not necessarily by a tie-breaker but my means of scoring rates, wickets lost, NRR etc.

  • vasu31may on April 24, 2009, 10:30 GMT

    Doesnt matter if Sambit Bal calls it a farce and is not a fan of the tie breaker or super over. It was a great match and a super over is a justifiable finish.

  • ThalaivanIrukiran on April 24, 2009, 9:58 GMT

    This was the best way by which they could generate the much needed viewership, which is what the tournament is for at the first instance. So from that point of view it was perfect.

  • vsrajan on April 24, 2009, 9:57 GMT

    Fittingly, RR won the game due to their sheer 'fighting spirits'. Though I am not a fan of KKR (only because of SRK and John "Useless" Buchannan"), they deserved to win due to Dada's efforts. It was a sad scene in the end to see Dada walking away with heads down. As such T20 is an entertainer and 'tie-breaker' adds spice to such entertainment. I dont agree with Sambhit. Entertainment needs to be taken to the extreme end which was what tie-breaker is meant for. Yusuf, you really rocked yesterday! Let KKR's coach learn from his counterpart Warney as to how to coach a team to become successful. Ironically, John was the coach when Warney was playing under him. Probably it is time for him to learn a thing or two from his ex-player... Kudos to RR. Keep it up!!!!!!!!!

  • mirchy on April 24, 2009, 9:46 GMT

    Clearly, Sambit Bal is a traditionalist without the capacity to understand that whereas a result in test cricket is not mandatory, it is in T20. Compare the washed out Mumbai/Rajastan match (or even the IND/PAK WC tie) with the participants sharing the points to the 2 super overs of yesterday. The former was a damp squib, the latter a nail-biting, edge-of-the-seat humdinger. To hell with the extra time it took to settle the issue. You've got to be a philosophical nut case to prefer a draw/tie to the post midnight Hitchcockesque thriller we were lucky enough to experience.

  • skipper74 on April 24, 2009, 9:46 GMT

    Couldn't agree more with Sambit. I also feel that till the authority actually decide to keep a tie as a tie, they should atleast start with giving points to the teams involved in a tie. I also feel winning team be awarded 3 points and an abandoned match should only give the respective sides 1 point each. The authority should proactively think of keeping a tie a tie as it the rarest form of result possible...(even the parrallel system of betting also has gains out of it :P)

    I only hope good sense & sensibility prevails sooner than later.

  • aarbanin on April 24, 2009, 9:45 GMT

    I think the only thing that went wrong in the tie-breaker was to bowl Mendis. Any bowler would have done it who could bowl in the block-hole. It could have been even Agarkar, but he is in terrible form these days. May be Ishant Sharma, but he too, is not full of confidence. So, the ideal bowler should have been Chris Gayle who earlier has bowled 4 overs without conceeding a single boundaries.. It may not have been there in the coaches laptop...!!!

  • rkannancrown on April 24, 2009, 9:44 GMT

    The logic of a tie breaker in a league game is questionable. If points can be split when rain washes out a game, then why can points not be split in tie. Atleast, the tie is caused by the game that has been played. Infact, in a league game,the minimum 5 over rule is foolish. I can understand a 20 over game being reduced to 15 overs, but anything less is bereft of logic. The administrators need to wake up to the fact that a draw actually adds value in preliminery rounds and only in knock out stage be a tie breaker used.

  • Chrishan on April 24, 2009, 9:43 GMT

    Firstly, KKR were in the driving seat until Yashpal went for a rash shot, and after what follwed they only have themselves to blame. But then again they got a second chance to redeem themselves for making a mess of the run chase. Now the beauty of the Super Over is that it can go either way and with KKR opening with two of the best hitters (if not 'the' best six hitters) in world cricket today I would have my money on them, especially since a young 18 year old was given the ball. But when it came to bowling KKR had 3 international bowlers (Mendis, Agarkar, Sharma) and since KKR couldn't stop Pathan I guess all credit should go to RR for bowling such a great over. You can't think that KKR was cheated 'cos of the Super Over, 'cos in my eyes they squandered plenty of opportunities and RR fought hard to tie the match witch led to the result.

  • Sir-Collingwood on April 24, 2009, 9:42 GMT

    While I can appreciate the art of a tie, to break it is not an uncommon practice. Most North American sporting leagues (i.e. the National (Ice) Hockey League) do break their ties. The NHL used to leave games as-is if it was still tied after an overtime period, but then switched to a shootout. While purists decry its existence, it does bring in the crowd. It's of course not used in the finals series, but it does inspire teams to not play for a tie and go for a win to prevent their opponent from getting any points.

    How's about this? Each team can still garner a point for the tie itself, but could, say, half a point be made available for the Super Over winner?

  • abhishekthakur on April 24, 2009, 9:41 GMT

    Its very difficult to disagree here. After all, what's wrong with a tie? And why cannot the bowl out or shoot out or any other outs be used only in the knock out stages?

  • Subra on April 24, 2009, 9:40 GMT

    Why do we need a tie-breaker in the League Stage. One can understand the need for a tie-breaker in the knock-out stages, because one team has to move forward. Yet another 'absurd' rule, like the timeout in the IPL. If it is for strategic reasons, the captains should be given a 2 or 3 minute option in each innings - once when batting and another when fielding. Siva from Singaporew

  • Dev1India on April 24, 2009, 9:39 GMT

    I do not think that the superbowl has devalued the result of the Tie. People will still rmemeber this match for the Tie . "First Tie in IPL".

    In fact the Superover just added to the excitement. We still are left to ponder what if 18 were not scored by Royals in the last over? What if Yousuf had carried on to score a ton? What if Ganguly had taken a wise single the ball he got out? What if Warne had not made the superb save on the last ball which led to the Run out?

    The super over added to the excitement as those players got a chance to correct some of those questions above and Boy didnt Yousuf make most of it. The way he got out to mendis first time was totally forgotten by the way he hit him so handsomely.

  • logmein on April 24, 2009, 9:37 GMT

    i don't agree. the super over simply adds to the thrill. in my opinion it is icing on the perfectly baked cake. and though the whole match was fantastic, but the part that i would remeber most for the years to come is the super over part. i am not a fan of ties. there has to be one winner always.

  • jasmeetbond on April 24, 2009, 9:36 GMT

    has this aticle got something to do with your fantasy team? just a thought... but i think super over is just cricket you get 1 more over to prove you did better i think its fair to the game

  • donthaveaclue on April 24, 2009, 9:34 GMT

    Here's what's wrong with a tie.

    It creates the artifical aura that the two teams are in a dead heat when their batting, bowling and fielding skills have been combined. A low-probability event caused only by chance and not by the skills of the opponents is elevated to a Rocky-like climax.

    Was it really that high-quality a game of cricket that it deserves to be remembered specifically as a tie? The game was first given away by the Royals with shoddy shot-making to be recovered by equally bad choices of shots by the Knight Riders.

    The Chennai v Delhi game was of much higher quality and it seems wrong for it to be rated as less of a contest than this one simply because of the teams ended with the same scores.

  • RamReddyG on April 24, 2009, 9:34 GMT

    I think the purpose of IPL extravaganza, is to make it more and more exciting, draw more crowd to watch it. So that is why the so called "administrators" of the game try out for different tie-breakers. I think there is no one who would feel absolutely dejected if KKR looses or if RR looses, then in that case why not have a tie-breaker and make the game more exciting. But ofcourse if you go 5-10 years down the line till IPL in India becomes like EPL in England, they would probably remove the tie breakers in the league stages.

  • sathishhegde on April 24, 2009, 9:34 GMT

    I like the match ended style... Patan is the Real Hero of 20-20. He can change any condition of the match. and SRK should understood from this...abt captancy. If sourav captain means,He might not give the super over to mendis. Indian batsmans like patan always destroy the spin attack... well done Patan....

  • simplesumo on April 24, 2009, 9:29 GMT

    A tie-breaker in the knock-out phase makes sense but not in the league where each team plays the other twice. If a team is not good enough to earn the 2 points in 40 overs, they should be rewarded 1 point. Otherwise, it is not fair to the other teams who have won and earned the 2 points legitimately.

  • Nipun on April 24, 2009, 9:12 GMT

    I completely agree with you.But as you know,the ICC is intent to keep on doing illogical things such as bowl outs & super overs. KKR should stay at the bottom of the IPL table because they play with only 2 batsmen-Gayle & Ganguly.McCullum hasn't even crossed 20/30 once after that FLASH IN THE PAN 158 against the hapless RCB last year.& that Brad Hodge,supposedly a great T20 batsman according to his records,is just a complete waste of an overseas player.Throughout both IPLs,he has looked to be able to score a 35 ball 25 at best.That he has a great T20 record shows how poorly T20 is played in England(KP & Flintoff would agree,both have been superflops so far).It's high time Mortaza replaces Hodge.Mortaza is far better T20 batsman than Hodge,& that too being a bowler.

  • SP_SUN on April 24, 2009, 9:05 GMT

    Very well articulated Sambit.. I too share ur opinion that TIE should be a honoured result.. The super over ruins the result.. May be one can have super over for semis.. but for league games, the points should be shared.. An interesting case is washed out match.. It gives equal points to both, irrespective of the teams playing, yet in a tie, we see only one team getting the honours...

  • Siddharth_Pandit on April 24, 2009, 9:03 GMT

    What ruined your match? A Tie Breaker? The match was, in fact, all more interesting due to the tie breaker. I can also describe the event as you did for the 20 over match. "The hero of KKR innings, Lord Almighty, was deprived the chance to start the precedings in the super over. Phoren baba Chela tried too hard to lose the match by going along with Calypso King, who is the only one after Lord Almighty who deserves a place in the team. King hit the rookie fast bowler for three consecutive fours which ensured KKRs efforts are not going to be wasted this night. But then came another shocker of a decision, when he threw the ball to 'mystery'. Every child in India knows what yousuf can do to spinners and they expected McCullum to know after he showed his potential by hitting patel for three consecutive in NZ T20s. But here comes mystery to pathan and he deposited 3 out of 4 in the stands to take RR royals to victory with two balls to spare."

  • Joydc on April 24, 2009, 8:58 GMT

    The article though very well written, leaves go of common sense towards the end. I am a Rajasthan royals fan, and inspite of the tie, I would want a result! Any sport has to have results! Yes, a tie is a rae feat achieved in cricket, by an involvement of two teams, however that isn't always true! Yesterdays match is a case in point! 150 as a target was pretty much achievable! KKR couldn't achieve it coz of some unbelievable gamer play, tactics and sheer will of team spirit from Rajasthan Royals players! There are a lot of suggestions to decide it through net run rate etc., but ultimately any game that has started on the field should also be decided on the field itself! So super over is absolutely fine! Interestingly Mr. Sambit Bal seems to be a bengali and a KKR supporter, so it's pretty obvious that he doesn't like his team losing! I am sure that Sambit Bal wouldn't have written this article if KKR had won the 'Super over'! It's just a matter of perspective Mr. Bal!

  • harsh.kataruka on April 24, 2009, 8:56 GMT

    I couldn't agree more with you. The concept of a tie-breaker in the IPL seems ridiculous especially since this a League and each team would be playing a 'Home' and 'Away' match with every other team, and Cricket already has the concept of Net-Run Rate to differentiate between two teams. Like Football, a tie-breaker should only be used in a knock-out stage of any tournament, be it an ICC tournament or the IPL.

  • swapnil on April 24, 2009, 8:45 GMT

    I dont agree with Sambhit....Afterall,IPL is all about winning.....You win a match n get 2 points which are of atmost importance....

  • scorpio84 on April 24, 2009, 8:36 GMT

    Seriously... what is the need of a tie breaker in league stages. May be in knockouts... its fine but why the hell a well fought match in league stage destroyed like this. Even in football penalty shoot out is used in knockout only. Can some one tell the _idiots_ and _hungry_ cricket administrator to have some common sense.

  • crickethits.com on April 24, 2009, 8:30 GMT

    Fulfilled but emotionally spent.. that's how millions of Indian cricket fans are feeling today. Half of the folks at workplace are somehow keeping themsleves awake today after watching this superb match till late last night. And everybody is upset. Because, as you said, this match should have ended in a tie, not in a heart breaking loss for a team through super over.And please write something about Ganguly's yet another comeback:) two sixes, one on the on side and the immediate one on the off side! Delicious cricket.

  • since7 on April 24, 2009, 8:22 GMT

    It is emotionally draining to see a match on hold when you think of the match being already decided..A tie brings about possibly all the possible reactions that one could wish of in a cricket match..A loss invariably depresses one and one feels empty after a win.But a tie results in satisfaction guranteed..I suppose the Net run rate system wa s better vet since it atleast includes how a team fared the whole tournament rather than deciding a game merely by a single over.But as for now,A superover is way better than a bowl out..a bowlout looks rather sillier than any form of cricket (even for say a 5 over game or furthermore IPL[:D])

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • since7 on April 24, 2009, 8:22 GMT

    It is emotionally draining to see a match on hold when you think of the match being already decided..A tie brings about possibly all the possible reactions that one could wish of in a cricket match..A loss invariably depresses one and one feels empty after a win.But a tie results in satisfaction guranteed..I suppose the Net run rate system wa s better vet since it atleast includes how a team fared the whole tournament rather than deciding a game merely by a single over.But as for now,A superover is way better than a bowl out..a bowlout looks rather sillier than any form of cricket (even for say a 5 over game or furthermore IPL[:D])

  • crickethits.com on April 24, 2009, 8:30 GMT

    Fulfilled but emotionally spent.. that's how millions of Indian cricket fans are feeling today. Half of the folks at workplace are somehow keeping themsleves awake today after watching this superb match till late last night. And everybody is upset. Because, as you said, this match should have ended in a tie, not in a heart breaking loss for a team through super over.And please write something about Ganguly's yet another comeback:) two sixes, one on the on side and the immediate one on the off side! Delicious cricket.

  • scorpio84 on April 24, 2009, 8:36 GMT

    Seriously... what is the need of a tie breaker in league stages. May be in knockouts... its fine but why the hell a well fought match in league stage destroyed like this. Even in football penalty shoot out is used in knockout only. Can some one tell the _idiots_ and _hungry_ cricket administrator to have some common sense.

  • swapnil on April 24, 2009, 8:45 GMT

    I dont agree with Sambhit....Afterall,IPL is all about winning.....You win a match n get 2 points which are of atmost importance....

  • harsh.kataruka on April 24, 2009, 8:56 GMT

    I couldn't agree more with you. The concept of a tie-breaker in the IPL seems ridiculous especially since this a League and each team would be playing a 'Home' and 'Away' match with every other team, and Cricket already has the concept of Net-Run Rate to differentiate between two teams. Like Football, a tie-breaker should only be used in a knock-out stage of any tournament, be it an ICC tournament or the IPL.

  • Joydc on April 24, 2009, 8:58 GMT

    The article though very well written, leaves go of common sense towards the end. I am a Rajasthan royals fan, and inspite of the tie, I would want a result! Any sport has to have results! Yes, a tie is a rae feat achieved in cricket, by an involvement of two teams, however that isn't always true! Yesterdays match is a case in point! 150 as a target was pretty much achievable! KKR couldn't achieve it coz of some unbelievable gamer play, tactics and sheer will of team spirit from Rajasthan Royals players! There are a lot of suggestions to decide it through net run rate etc., but ultimately any game that has started on the field should also be decided on the field itself! So super over is absolutely fine! Interestingly Mr. Sambit Bal seems to be a bengali and a KKR supporter, so it's pretty obvious that he doesn't like his team losing! I am sure that Sambit Bal wouldn't have written this article if KKR had won the 'Super over'! It's just a matter of perspective Mr. Bal!

  • Siddharth_Pandit on April 24, 2009, 9:03 GMT

    What ruined your match? A Tie Breaker? The match was, in fact, all more interesting due to the tie breaker. I can also describe the event as you did for the 20 over match. "The hero of KKR innings, Lord Almighty, was deprived the chance to start the precedings in the super over. Phoren baba Chela tried too hard to lose the match by going along with Calypso King, who is the only one after Lord Almighty who deserves a place in the team. King hit the rookie fast bowler for three consecutive fours which ensured KKRs efforts are not going to be wasted this night. But then came another shocker of a decision, when he threw the ball to 'mystery'. Every child in India knows what yousuf can do to spinners and they expected McCullum to know after he showed his potential by hitting patel for three consecutive in NZ T20s. But here comes mystery to pathan and he deposited 3 out of 4 in the stands to take RR royals to victory with two balls to spare."

  • SP_SUN on April 24, 2009, 9:05 GMT

    Very well articulated Sambit.. I too share ur opinion that TIE should be a honoured result.. The super over ruins the result.. May be one can have super over for semis.. but for league games, the points should be shared.. An interesting case is washed out match.. It gives equal points to both, irrespective of the teams playing, yet in a tie, we see only one team getting the honours...

  • Nipun on April 24, 2009, 9:12 GMT

    I completely agree with you.But as you know,the ICC is intent to keep on doing illogical things such as bowl outs & super overs. KKR should stay at the bottom of the IPL table because they play with only 2 batsmen-Gayle & Ganguly.McCullum hasn't even crossed 20/30 once after that FLASH IN THE PAN 158 against the hapless RCB last year.& that Brad Hodge,supposedly a great T20 batsman according to his records,is just a complete waste of an overseas player.Throughout both IPLs,he has looked to be able to score a 35 ball 25 at best.That he has a great T20 record shows how poorly T20 is played in England(KP & Flintoff would agree,both have been superflops so far).It's high time Mortaza replaces Hodge.Mortaza is far better T20 batsman than Hodge,& that too being a bowler.

  • simplesumo on April 24, 2009, 9:29 GMT

    A tie-breaker in the knock-out phase makes sense but not in the league where each team plays the other twice. If a team is not good enough to earn the 2 points in 40 overs, they should be rewarded 1 point. Otherwise, it is not fair to the other teams who have won and earned the 2 points legitimately.