A Tie

HonalD

Was going to mention this in todays thread, with regard to a tie, should the team that lost less wickets win? If both have same number of dismissals then its a proper tie.

What do the experts think?

KevIRL

I remember thinking that Ireland's tie with Zimbabwe in 2007 World Cup was particularly harsh as Zim were all out for 221 after 50 overs while Ireland had a wicket in hand at 221/9 from their 50 overs.

Dan man

I don't think that the number of wickets lost should need to be taken into account....teams need to re-assess their strategy mid-game corresponding to the number of wickets they have left. So it's not really important how they get to the required total, the important thing is that they got there.

Like in a 400m race....one runner might run a blistering first 250m and die a death in last section of the race, whereas another runner might manage the pace a little better and come through strongly at the end...but if both finish the race at same time it doesn't matter in what shape either athlete is in at the end...both finished at the same time.

It's sort of the same thing with cricket....it doesn't matter if they lost more wickets....the other team perhaps could have managed their innings a little better and ended up with a higher total if they took a few more risks.

HonalD

KevIRL wrote: »

I remember thinking that Ireland's tie with Zimbabwe in 2007 World Cup was particularly harsh as Zim were all out for 221 after 50 overs while Ireland had a wicket in hand at 221/9 from their 50 overs.

Dan, I'm more in line with KevIrl on this one. I think that if one team is bowled out then the other team if it has wickets left over should get the nod. But perhaps only in the case of one team being all out.

Rascasse

HonalD wrote: »

Dan, I'm more in line with KevIrl on this one. I think that if one team is bowled out then the other team if it has wickets left over should get the nod. But perhaps only in the case of one team being all out.

If a team has wickets left over perhaps they could have taken more of a risk to get that single run for the win. Also, today was the 28th tie in 3357 ODI's (0.83%) so it's not really a problem worth the ICC's time addressing.

For the badgers, ties have also occurred twice in 2088 tests (0.1%) and 8 times in 316 T20I's (2.53%).

djimi

Some competitions use wickets to determine a winner in the event of a tie. Usually where the game needs a clear winner I think. Or, as in twenty 20, they might use something like a golden over to determine the winner.

djimi

Rascasse wrote: »

. Also, today was the 28th tie in 3357 ODI's (0.83%).

That's actually an amazingly low stat considering how many limited over games end in tight finishes.

KevIRL

djimi wrote: »

That's actually an amazingly low star considering how many limited over games end in tight finishes.

And its also pretty amazing that Ireland have been involved in 2 of of the 28th ties, especially considering how few of the 3357 ODI's Ireland would have played in compared to other countries

Beasty

djimi wrote: »

That's actually an amazingly low stat considering how many limited over games end in tight finishes.

Have the rules not varied over the years? I certainly seem to remember in some of the English knock-out competitions they used to look at wickets lost, then who was ahead after a certain number of overs (or was that for rain-affected matches?) - I certainly seem to recall that in years gone by they made more of an "effort" to ensure there was a positive result one way or other

Personally though, other than for knock-out competitions, I like the idea of the odd tie - when teams are so close it's nice to see the spoils shared occasionally

Renno

The thinking generally, is why not have a tie?

Then if there is a need to split a tie - normally knockout competitions, then regulations are put in place to split the tie.

But why does the tie need to be split in a non-knockout ODI? It's the same argument with NFL/MLB and soccer/rugby. Some sports split the tie, others don't

djimi

Depends on the game, but if it's not a league where points are awarded for a tie then I know I would prefer to have some way of defining a clear winner rather than leaving it as a tie. Something like a golden over would have been good entertainment for the crowd the other night.

HonalD

djimi wrote: »

Depends on the game, but if it's not a league where points are awarded for a tie then I know I would prefer to have some way of defining a clear winner rather than leaving it as a tie. Something like a golden over would have been good entertainment for the crowd the other night.

Wouldn't all ODIs count then as rankings are in question?

djimi

Yeah you are right actually. Not sure how it works for the ODI rankings.