ICC World Cup 2019: Boundary count beyond realm of cricket's logic
Highlights
- Of the 40 tied ODIs, only four matches in the format's history have ended in a result.
- Three out of those four matches had a different rule to decide the winner.
- It is difficult to assume that anybody would have foreseen a scenario that Sunday's final threw at the world.
MUMBAI: What happened in the dying minutes of possibly the greatest ODI ever played has finally brought to fore constant changing of rules that will be debated and discussed for a very long time to come.
The rule was clear right from the start, categorically explained to the two captains once again before the start of the Super Over by field umpires Kumara Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus: "If the Super Over is tied, the team that scored more boundaries in the match, right from the start, will be declared winners".
There was no confusion at that point in time. The confusion lies elsewhere. For a format that is 48 years old now, has witnessed 12 World Cups, accounts for a total of 40 tied matches, saw a World Cup knockout match end in a tie 20 years ago and has undergone a plethora of rule changes - some continued with, some altered, others dismissed - it's shocking how the game's governing body has never ensured continuity of rules, forget continuity of thought.
Of the 40 tied ODIs, only four matches in the format's history have ended in a result and three out of those four had a different rule to decide the winner.
Here are the instances: The World Cup final on Sunday decided the winner with a Super Over; The winner of the 1999 World Cup semifinal between Australia and South Africa was decided on head-to-head results. And (surprisingly) in two ODIs in the late eighties - India versus Pakistan at Hyderabad in March 1987 and Australia versus Pakistan at Lahore in October 1988 - winners were decided on the basis of which team lost fewer wickets while batting.
All the ICC's high-profile technical committees, working groups on cricket and constant changing of rules haven't been able to devise a simple conclusive rule to a tied 50-over game in all these years.
It is difficult to assume that anybody would have foreseen a scenario that Sunday's final threw at the world - a total of 102 overs where both teams scored the exact number of runs (though former ICC umpire Simon Taufel rejects that idea too).
Therefore, it will be equally difficult to assume that either team - England or New Zealand - would have gone into the game keeping in mind they would have to score more boundaries only so that they would be safe in case the match is tied and so is the Super Over. Sunday, therefore, was an anomaly of sorts, But logic has anyway not been given its due where the format is concerned. Given the kind of grounds that England has - diametrically different in shapes and sizes, some boundaries way too short, some corners abruptly deep - every team was bound to play with their own strategy and not every captain flew in here with the idea of hitting boundaries to win a game.
Barring Kane Williamson, the third-highest run-getter this World Cup, no other New Zealand batsman figures in the top 18 of those who hit the most number of boundaries. Australia have four, India have three, Bangladesh two and none made it to the World Cup final.
But that's how the ICC has worked on the game through the years. Introducing softsignals for umpires, demerit points to punish players, allowing bowlers two new balls but not changing the bouncer rule, regulating ball tampering but not worrying about bat weight and sizes and for all practical purposes, following the T20 way in a 50-over game.
Deciding the fate of a match and a nation on the tenterhooks by counting the number of boundaries they scored is only a reminder of how they have lacked so thoroughly in imagination.
THE SUPER OVER RULE
In the event of a Super Over tie, the team that hit more boundaries (combined from the main match and the Super Over) shall be the winner.
If the number of boundaries hit by both teams is equal, the team whose batsmen scored more boundaries during its innings in the main match (ignoring the Super Over) shall be the winner.
If still equal, a countback from the final ball of the Super Over will be conducted. The team with the higher scoring delivery shall be the winner. If a team loses two wickets during its over, then any unbowled deliveries will be counted as dot balls.
THE OTHER FAMOUS KNOCKOUT TIE
In 1999, the decision to award Australia, and not South Africa, the win after their tied semi-final game, was also contentious as it took into account Australia's win over the Proteas in a Super Six encounter.
THE BOWL OUT
The inaugural World T20 in South Africa in 2007 featured a bowl out between India and Pakistan in the group stage after the game was tied. India hit the stumps thrice and Pakistan missed. This ridiculous rule was scrapped almost immediately.
OTHER CONTENTIOUS RULES
Rain Pain: A shower that lasted 10 minutes made the target of 22 from 13 balls into 22 off 1 and knocked South Africa out against England in the semifinal against England at Sydney.
In 1999, the Duckworth Lewis method was introduced. According to the method, a rain interruption took into account several factors like run-rate, wickets lost and wickets in hand. Despite the occasional heartburn, it still is considered reasonably fair.
The rule was clear right from the start, categorically explained to the two captains once again before the start of the Super Over by field umpires Kumara Dharmasena and Marais Erasmus: "If the Super Over is tied, the team that scored more boundaries in the match, right from the start, will be declared winners".
There was no confusion at that point in time. The confusion lies elsewhere. For a format that is 48 years old now, has witnessed 12 World Cups, accounts for a total of 40 tied matches, saw a World Cup knockout match end in a tie 20 years ago and has undergone a plethora of rule changes - some continued with, some altered, others dismissed - it's shocking how the game's governing body has never ensured continuity of rules, forget continuity of thought.
Of the 40 tied ODIs, only four matches in the format's history have ended in a result and three out of those four had a different rule to decide the winner.
Here are the instances: The World Cup final on Sunday decided the winner with a Super Over; The winner of the 1999 World Cup semifinal between Australia and South Africa was decided on head-to-head results. And (surprisingly) in two ODIs in the late eighties - India versus Pakistan at Hyderabad in March 1987 and Australia versus Pakistan at Lahore in October 1988 - winners were decided on the basis of which team lost fewer wickets while batting.
All the ICC's high-profile technical committees, working groups on cricket and constant changing of rules haven't been able to devise a simple conclusive rule to a tied 50-over game in all these years.
It is difficult to assume that anybody would have foreseen a scenario that Sunday's final threw at the world - a total of 102 overs where both teams scored the exact number of runs (though former ICC umpire Simon Taufel rejects that idea too).
Therefore, it will be equally difficult to assume that either team - England or New Zealand - would have gone into the game keeping in mind they would have to score more boundaries only so that they would be safe in case the match is tied and so is the Super Over. Sunday, therefore, was an anomaly of sorts, But logic has anyway not been given its due where the format is concerned. Given the kind of grounds that England has - diametrically different in shapes and sizes, some boundaries way too short, some corners abruptly deep - every team was bound to play with their own strategy and not every captain flew in here with the idea of hitting boundaries to win a game.
Barring Kane Williamson, the third-highest run-getter this World Cup, no other New Zealand batsman figures in the top 18 of those who hit the most number of boundaries. Australia have four, India have three, Bangladesh two and none made it to the World Cup final.
But that's how the ICC has worked on the game through the years. Introducing softsignals for umpires, demerit points to punish players, allowing bowlers two new balls but not changing the bouncer rule, regulating ball tampering but not worrying about bat weight and sizes and for all practical purposes, following the T20 way in a 50-over game.
Deciding the fate of a match and a nation on the tenterhooks by counting the number of boundaries they scored is only a reminder of how they have lacked so thoroughly in imagination.
THE SUPER OVER RULE
In the event of a Super Over tie, the team that hit more boundaries (combined from the main match and the Super Over) shall be the winner.
If the number of boundaries hit by both teams is equal, the team whose batsmen scored more boundaries during its innings in the main match (ignoring the Super Over) shall be the winner.
If still equal, a countback from the final ball of the Super Over will be conducted. The team with the higher scoring delivery shall be the winner. If a team loses two wickets during its over, then any unbowled deliveries will be counted as dot balls.
THE OTHER FAMOUS KNOCKOUT TIE
In 1999, the decision to award Australia, and not South Africa, the win after their tied semi-final game, was also contentious as it took into account Australia's win over the Proteas in a Super Six encounter.
THE BOWL OUT
The inaugural World T20 in South Africa in 2007 featured a bowl out between India and Pakistan in the group stage after the game was tied. India hit the stumps thrice and Pakistan missed. This ridiculous rule was scrapped almost immediately.
OTHER CONTENTIOUS RULES
Rain Pain: A shower that lasted 10 minutes made the target of 22 from 13 balls into 22 off 1 and knocked South Africa out against England in the semifinal against England at Sydney.
In 1999, the Duckworth Lewis method was introduced. According to the method, a rain interruption took into account several factors like run-rate, wickets lost and wickets in hand. Despite the occasional heartburn, it still is considered reasonably fair.
Download The Times of India News App for Latest Sports News.
All Comments ()+^ Back to Top
Refrain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks, name calling or inciting hatred against any community. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines by marking them offensive. Let's work together to keep the conversation civil.
HIDE