- Feb 1, 2005
- 55,712
- 206,004
- Admin
- #9,701
IIRC they were of the opinion that the method used rewarded or better encouraged attacking cricket. I think having a super over in the event of a tied score is fair enough, it's when the super over is a tie that they have problems and lets be honest, who how many games of cricket have gone that far. I doubt they even thought it would ever happenI appreciate they have to decide somehow, but surely having wickets in hand Vs being all out is a much better decider than the number of boundaries? It would make far more sense for NZ to have "won by 2 wickets" to be honest. I would accept if broth teams had the same number of runs AND the same number of wickets that you need to go to a super over, but as NZ still had wickets in hand it seems to me to be very harsh that that counts for nothing
Personally, I think much like penalty shootouts there's never going to be a perfect solution, they happen to have plumped for this one, choose another one and its someone else getting the itch. Whichever way they landed they'd have been criticised by someone.
Luckily, for our entertainment, in this case its you