Posts: 3,702
Threads: 249
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
8
Why have the changed the method of deciding tied limited overs games.
When I took more of an interest it was always the team that had lost the fewest wickets that won - boring but possibly more fair.
Have they changed it to the one over format just for a greater entertainment factor or was there a moral judgement that this system is more fairer.
Posts: 11,709
Threads: 273
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
51
Yes, it always was the fewest wickets lost. I'm guessing the authorities think this is the more interesting. Personally the old method has to be more worthy. Whatever, the drama of yesterday doesn't come around often.
Posts: 2,156
Threads: 47
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
6
The current method is probably a reward for being more inclined to chuck the bat at it rather than protecting wickets. I doubt that could ever come into the thinking for teams in a limited overs match though, so it's hardly an incentive.
The old method does look fairer on the face of it, but both teams knew the rules before they started. You couldn't blame the New Zealand players for thinking everything went against them though.
Posts: 13,048
Threads: 1,260
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
6
If it had been based on wickets then England wouldn't have tried to make the 2nd run in the last ball of the 50 overs, so they game would still have been tied.
Posts: 1,958
Threads: 69
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
4
Whatever the reason for changing the rules is irrelevant because that ending was the mutts nuts.
Posts: 13,485
Threads: 402
Joined: Jul 2019
Reputation:
14
Apparently they're (well some top umpire) that the second run when the ball deflected off the bat wasn't far enough concluded when the fielder threw, so we should only have had 5 and not 6...
