Super Overs: Why Only One?

Augustus Gloop

Augustus Gloop

Goalkeeper
Why is the super over eliminator tied to just one go-around?
Would it make sense to say 'keep playing super overs until you have a winner'?
Would you instead say 'x super overs, and if every one of them is tied, then do something else'?

I'd love to see this
  • Play super overs until there is a winner
  • A bowler cannot bowl in more than one super-over
  • A batsman cannot be allocated to more than one super-over, regardless of whether they get to bat or not
  • The 12th man is allowed to bat in the super over
This would mean that you could have a max of 4 super overs to decide a winner, and then if it's still tied then you can start looking at things like wickets lost in the super overs, or boundaries scored in the super overs.
 


stephen cartwright said:
England, World Champions
Click to expand...

Congratulations, well done you all. Rather you than India or Australia
Rather Nepal than you lot
But as a cricket fan who has no realistic chance of seeing my team win the World Cup in my lifetime, I'd love to see super overs be not quite so abrupt. Never been a fan. It feels like a one-off penalty for a football game.
 
Augustus Gloop said:
Why is the super over eliminator tied to just one go-around?
Would it make sense to say 'keep playing super overs until you have a winner'?
Would you instead say 'x super overs, and if every one of them is tied, then do something else'?

I'd love to see this
  • Play super overs until there is a winner
  • A bowler cannot bowl in more than one super-over
  • A batsman cannot be allocated to more than one super-over, regardless of whether they get to bat or not
  • The 12th man is allowed to bat in the super over
This would mean that you could have a max of 4 super overs to decide a winner, and then if it's still tied then you can start looking at things like wickets lost in the super overs, or boundaries scored in the super overs.
Click to expand...

How long would all this take and what if it rained during the super overs. You could be there all night.
 
Augustus Gloop said:
Congratulations, well done you all. Rather you than India or Australia
Rather Nepal than you lot
But as a cricket fan who has no realistic chance of seeing my team win the World Cup in my lifetime, I'd love to see super overs be not quite so abrupt. Never been a fan. It feels like a one-off penalty for a football game.
Click to expand...
How so? You get five penalties in football, you get six balls in a super over. It was perfect. You can drag things on too long.
 
I said yesterday that I felt that 6 balls a side to decide what happened in the 50 overs per side before that didn’t quite seem right.

I’d have preferred 5 overs each, or at the very least 3 overs a side. Just feel more Cricket would’ve been better to get to a winner.

All that said, the drama that was produced and the way it all unfolded made it the greatest cricket game there has ever been. That is undeniable.
 
chunksafc said:
Let's be honest, not one person on the planet every thought a super over on such a big stage would end in a tie
Click to expand...

This. Multiple super overs would have been stupid for all involved, cannot drag things out too much and sometimes you need a deciding metric. I’d have preferred it to be the group stage game deciding it or something rather than boundaries scored though, as I don’t see the relevance of scoring boundaries. A four and a dot is the same as a pair of twos - arguably worse infact as you aren’t keeping the scoreboard going
 
Augustus Gloop said:
Why is the super over eliminator tied to just one go-around?
Would it make sense to say 'keep playing super overs until you have a winner'?
Would you instead say 'x super overs, and if every one of them is tied, then do something else'?

I'd love to see this
  • Play super overs until there is a winner
  • A bowler cannot bowl in more than one super-over
  • A batsman cannot be allocated to more than one super-over, regardless of whether they get to bat or not
  • The 12th man is allowed to bat in the super over
This would mean that you could have a max of 4 super overs to decide a winner, and then if it's still tied then you can start looking at things like wickets lost in the super overs, or boundaries scored in the super overs.
Click to expand...
It’s called “Super Over” singular, work the rest out for yourself.
 
brandon said:
I said yesterday that I felt that 6 balls a side to decide what happened in the 50 overs per side before that didn’t quite seem right.

I’d have preferred 5 overs each, or at the very least 3 overs a side. Just feel more Cricket would’ve been better to get to a winner.

All that said, the drama that was produced and the way it all unfolded made it the greatest cricket game there has ever been. That is undeniable.
Click to expand...

I'm in agreement, at the very least another super over should have been played IMO.
 
For me, it was perfect, and not just saying that because we won. The tension building up, the adrenaline rush during both overs was tremendous.

Like a penalty shoot out, it’s shit that after so much time and effort invested by both sides that there has to be a winner and a loser, but that’s professional sport.
 
Flared Hicks said:
For me, it was perfect, and not just saying that because we won. The tension building up, the adrenaline rush during both overs was tremendous.

Like a penalty shoot out, it’s shit that after so much time and effort invested by both sides that there has to be a winner and a loser, but that’s professional sport.
Click to expand...
Have you seen the vid in the new World Cup thread? The whole of the super overs from a fans view inside lords.

Great stuff
 
It is used in the very very rare event there is a tie in and ODI game, there has to be a winner in a final. Whatever method was chosen some people would find a reason to moan about it. It provided probably the most dramatic moment in cricket history, what’s not to like?
 
Mainze said:
It is used in the very very rare event there is a tie in and ODI game, there has to be a winner in a final. Whatever method was chosen some people would find a reason to moan about it. It provided probably the most dramatic moment in cricket history, what’s not to like?
Click to expand...

Tbh, it’s not the super over, it’s the unfortunate ‘who scored more boundaries’ rule.

To make an analogy, it’s like football using ‘who had more completed passes’ to determine the winner if teams are still tied after 5 penalties.

The number of boundaries should be immaterial, in the context of the game it’s the runs scored, not how they were scored.

But them were the rules, and England’s style of play was more suited to take advantage of this specific wrinkle.

Like someone else stated, I don’t think that anyone ever thought a super over would be tied, but it’s still a horrible way for NZ to lose the World Cup. The injustice is on par, if not worse, than the debacle of South Africa needing to score 20-odd runs off the last ball to win their semi final that one World Cup.

That situation led to a re-think of how to restructure shortened chases (and eventually DL), and I think this situation should similarly lead to a re-think of how to handle a tied super over.

Maybe it is keep playing super overs until it ends (kind of like basketball where they keep adding overtime) or else maybe it then transitions to a super ball or maybe it is something else altogether.

Either way, it shouldn’t be ‘let’s rewind the clock to something that already happened’.. the one exception possibly being awarding it to the team that better in the group stages (by which measure England would have still won, bit it wouldn’t have felt so unjust)
 
Don’t care, don’t care, don’t care, we won, we actually won something; a World Cup! For a change the stars aligned for England. Nothing unjust about it - still on cloud 9 :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:
 

Back
Top