New Zealand played England in the Cricket World Cup final, the match ending in a tie after each had completed their 50 overs (241 runs each). The contest then went to so-called "super overs" where 6 extra balls are bowled by each team. The team scoring the most runs wins. However, the super overs also ended tied. That handed the world cup to England as they had scored the most boundaries in the match.
[ Update: NZ actually won the game, scoring 241 runs to England's 240. No need for the so-called Super Over. Turns out the umpires got it wrong on the third to last ball of the match, awarding Ben Stokes 2 runs plus 4 overthrows, a total of 6 off the ball when it should have been 5 runs scored - see this link: Ben Stokes Incident
This illustrates why I prefer baseball over cricket. Coaches and key players know their rules in baseball. I have said it many times, NZ have proven themselves to be a bunch of amateurs at this cricket biz. They should have stopped the game to have the correct score registered (this is not to criticise England, Stokes did nothing wrong and he's entitled to take everything that comes his way)]
After a day playing such a closely fought match, it's kind of hollow to decide things by count-back of boundaries (it also penalises teams that collect runs in singles and two's and who do not get bowled out accumulating their score). Why do they not play the way basketball does when the scores are tied? Keep playing extra time until a result is obtained. In cricket that would mean adding super over after super over until the result.
Many will say that NZ redeemed themselves a little after their capitulation to Australia in the final four years ago. But I'm not so generous, the reason NZ lost runs a little deeper, it goes to the culture within the team.
Leading up to the final the NZ trainings looked like a team just happy to make the final. They didn't look like a team desperate to avoid losing another final. Then during the game they could not set a worthwhile total, NZ's final 10 overs with the bat were average at best. To illustrate, consider the very last ball NZ faced. The batsman ducked out of the way and no run was scored. What he should have done is throw his bat at the ball as there wasn't another ball to face. Defending, NZ fielded well, but they too often find themselves defending a total that's too low. Thus, their results are often much closer than they need to be and this latest final was a classic example of that.
England looked like they were choking under the pressure of home town expectations. They got there - just. NZ has to learn to keep their foot on the throats of their opponents. Oh and while NZ were robbed, England did deserve the win. Why? NZ only won one of their last five matches played in the tournament.
No comments:
Post a Comment