If The Championships at Wimbledon, tied 12-all in the fifth set before the tiebreaker decided it for Novak Djokovic, what do you suppose would have been the reaction if the match had been handed to Roger Federer because he had more service aces or fewer double faults?
England was awarded the 2019 ICC ODI Cricket World Cup, even though the game was deadlocked after 100 overs and the ‘tiebreaker,’ the Super Over.
New Zealand lost the match on the basis of fewer boundaries than England, leading many observers to suggest that there has to be a better way to settle things.
They could have continued play with additional Super Overs until a clear winner was determined.
True, we are slightly biased in the direction of the Black Caps, but the England players have to be cognizant that theirs’ was a hollow victory, as they did not win the match.
Not only did England win on boundaries, they won despite surrendering more wickets.
Wickets used to be the decider, but that method was also decidedly unsatisfying. Were wickets still the method used, the Black Caps would have been the winners.
The suggestion of using the points table would have given the win to England. This idea would rule out teams from manipulating matches to get a more favourable semifinal matchup.
If head-to-head play between the finalists had been used, the trophy would have went to England, because in the round-robin portion of play, England outscored New Zealand by 119 runs.
The Black Caps are more than likely taking the approach that these sorts of scenarios, that is, losing a tied match, could be avoided with a decisive victory margin, much as players in other codes realise that being well ahead allows for rare circumstances to occur without impacting the outcome.
Ties are part of cricket. Tied results are not common, but everyone accepts that they do happen in cricket. It might have been a nice gesture to declare both sides winners, but that might have only made more trouble for Ben Stokes.