• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Tied Superover Rule Change

Molehill

Molehill

Cricketer Of The Year
If we get a second super over, which team bats first? I'm kind of guessing that it would be the team that batted second in the first one so you don't have to keep swapping the teams around. But that would be too much like using common sense, so who the **** knows?
 
CricAddict

CricAddict

Cricketer Of The Year
The 4 players (3 batsmen and the bowler) involved in the first super over should not be allowed in the second super over again. That will be more interesting.
 
A

Ashes81

State Vice-Captain
Although it benefitted England, the boundary count rule was a farce and needed replacing.

Personally, I wouldn't have gone with another super over, the team with the biggest historical empire should be awarded the game.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Molehill said:
If we get a second super over, which team bats first? I'm kind of guessing that it would be the team that batted second in the first one so you don't have to keep swapping the teams around. But that would be too much like using common sense, so who the **** knows?
Click to expand...
CricAddict said:
The 4 players (3 batsmen and the bowler) involved in the first super over should not be allowed in the second super over again. That will be more interesting.
Click to expand...

Think both these are part of the actual roles, if I am not wrong.
 
L

loterry1994

International Debutant
Those kiwis can blame the super over rules back in that last World Cup but hardly anyone says how stupid some their batting was that day
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Does anyone think since ODIs are longer than t20s it should be two/three super overs rather than one? Basically a super spell. So 12/18 balls each for each side to face and maybe 3 or 4 wickets instead of 2 for the batting team

Just feels like 6 balls is too luck based for a 50 over game to be decided on. I know it's not as catchy a name/concept but it feels a bit more fair.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
mr_mister said:
Does anyone think since ODIs are longer than t20s it should be two/three super overs rather than one? Basically a super spell. So 12/18 balls each for each side to face and maybe 3 or 4 wickets instead of 2 for the batting team

Just feels like 6 balls is too luck based for a 50 over game to be decided on. I know it's not as catchy a name/concept but it feels a bit more fair.
Click to expand...
Yeah in theory. I guess they’re trying to not have it go on too much longer
 
Owzat

Owzat

U19 Captain
knockout matches only

- fewest wickets lost, or most taken if you want to flip it around
- most wins to reach the relevant stage

or perhaps hit 'em where it hurts, quickest over rate in the competition, might make them a little less complacent
 
Owzat

Owzat

U19 Captain
mr_mister said:
Does anyone think since ODIs are longer than t20s it should be two/three super overs rather than one? Basically a super spell. So 12/18 balls each for each side to face and maybe 3 or 4 wickets instead of 2 for the batting team

Just feels like 6 balls is too luck based for a 50 over game to be decided on. I know it's not as catchy a name/concept but it feels a bit more fair.
Click to expand...
I do agree that this six balls "super over" to win an important game seems to reduce it to a lottery


reward the team that played the best, most positive cricket, take the fewest wickets lost/most taken, over rates, NRR maybe (conditions same in theory for both sides in each game although I'd park it as not all pitches are the same so one side might play on a belter of a pitch giving their NRR a boost)

I've long since felt NRR probably ought to be replaced with something more reflecting differing pitches, convert margins to wickets so simple enough if eg kiwis beat England's total with nine wickets in hand, only slightly more complicated if win batting first


England 282/9 vs New Zealand 283/1 - New Zealand win by 9 wickets
Pakistan 286/10 vs Holland 205/10 - Pakistan won by 4 wickets*

*take the number of wickets lost when Pakistan/side batting first reached/passed the chasing side's final total, so Pakistan were 206/6

what this does is convert all results to a level playing field, how many runs are scored is too dependant on the pitch. Also puts the dutch effort into perspective more than 81 runs does, was a lot tighter than Pakistan would have liked.

And in the whalloping South Africa dished out their margin would have been 7 wickets
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
mr_mister said:
Does anyone think since ODIs are longer than t20s it should be two/three super overs rather than one? Basically a super spell. So 12/18 balls each for each side to face and maybe 3 or 4 wickets instead of 2 for the batting team

Just feels like 6 balls is too luck based for a 50 over game to be decided on. I know it's not as catchy a name/concept but it feels a bit more fair.
Click to expand...
Just declare it a tie and split points. In knockout, use league round ranking to decide winner. That's it.

Super overs should be wiped from the face of the earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top