'Victory is won not in miles, but in inches'- Louis L'Amour
World Cup Final...Lords Cricket Stadium...Wimbledon final...Roger Federer...Centre Court...What more can a sports lover ask for? Add to that the level of intensity and the margins that separated the winners from the (don't wish to, but have to call them) losers!
14th July 2019 shall undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest days in sporting history. The level of athleticism and sportsmanship spirit was something any 'true' sports lover would relish.
So, which game was more enthralling? That is really difficult to answer. Statistics suggest that the Wimbledon game was watched by a peak of 9.6 million viewers, while the peak viewership for the ICC Cricket World Cup final was 8.6 million. This suggests that the Wimbledon match beat the cricket match in viewership (or tennis beat cricket...for once:)
But, surely, the World Cup final has left the most number of 'talking points' for people to endlessly debate upon. Three days on, the final moments of the game... Super over...Jofra Archer bowling a sizzling yorker, Guptill playing it to square leg, rushing back for the second, Buttler removing the bails, England ecstatic, New Zealand distraught. Ah, those moments still flash back for many fans.
But, as every significant moment does, Twitter has been abuzz with comments regarding the ICC, Umpires, rules and so on. Players, coaches, former umpires, analysts, commentators...everyone is having their say on what manifested on the field. I am sure you too may be a little confused. So, in this blog, I will try and help you understand the situation better and give you a balanced picture of the issues that have arisen after the final.
Congratulations England!
Firstly, we must all shove aside our opinions, step aside and applaud this English team for making such a dream comeback and winning their first ever World Cup. Mid-way through the tournament, after losses to Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Australia, their dreams of winning the World Cup seemed to be hanging by a thread. But, their victory over India gave them the morale to go on to defeat New Zealand and Australia and reach the finals, where they managed to win, though by a whisker. Whatever said and done, after an abysmal performance in 2015, this is a tribute to the hard work put in by the management and the board, which includes unsung heroes like Trevor Bayliss and Andrew Strauss. Hearty congratulations for such an astounding performance.
Respect#New Zealand!
New Zealand always comes into tournaments as underdogs, and then punches above its weight. How near was this team to creating history? Perhaps an inch, or a deflection here and there...But, whatever said and done, the players, led by the ever astute and humble Kane Williamson, showed indomitable spirit. Inspite of their batsmen badly faltering for a larger part of the competition, their bowlers supplemented by Williamson's brilliance with the bat, earned them a place in the final. Inspite of falling just short of winning the coveted trophy, the team has definitely won millions of hearts!
Now, let us come to the most controversial of all discussions: The Final. There were so many talking points, but let us first applaud the quality of cricket played that day! Who would have imagined a final going down to a Super Over? The script for this game was surely written somewhere in the heavens.
There were 4 talking points in this game. Let us discuss each one of them in detail:-
1. THE INADVERTENT, DEFLECTED SIX:
15 runs needed off 4 balls. Kane Williamson has one hand on the cup. Trent Boult has bowled two consecutive dot balls. Pressure on Ben Stokes. Next ball, Stokes swings, times it beautifully, and the ball goes into the stands. Pressure releaser!
9 needed off 3 balls!
Next ball, Stokes plays it to deep mid wicket, where Martin Guptill has been stationed. Guptill throws it at the striker's end, where Stokes is rushing to get back on strike. He dives, the ball hits his bat and rushes into the third-man fence. Stokes raises his arms and apologises. The umpire signals six runs. Everyone is stunned. The World Cup has turned on its head.
Now, the law states that if there is an inadvertent deflection off the bat, then the runs would be counted, and that was exactly what happened. If Stokes would have changed his line and blocked the ball from hitting the stumps, he would have been given out obstructing the field. But, he had dived to prevent himself from getting out, and this was completely inadvertent. Now, this is a weird situation, that may not have struck the officials in the ICC until that moment. It may be giving them and the Kiwi players nightmares at present!
Instead of playing the blame-game, let us carefully understand the law. According to law 19.8, in such circumstances, the runs completed by the batsmen at the time of the throw should be counted, and thus, it should have been signalled as 5 runs, instead of 6. One might consider 1 run to be insignificant, but in that game, it surely did make a difference. But, it might be unfair to blame the umpires for that decision. We often say that players are under pressure, but must remember, that umpires too are equally under the pump, and thus would have taken such a decision at the heat of the moment. They could have referred it upstairs, and infact should have done that! But, that is for later discussion.
The more contentious issue is the word 'inadvertent', in this case used with reference to the batsman.
If performing any act inadvertently is considered pardonable in the game of cricket, shouldn't bowlers also be pardoned for bowling no-balls. This might sound a little extreme, but the fact is that bowlers (unless indulging in unwarranted activities) don't bowl no-balls on purpose, very much the manner in which Stokes did not intend to block the ball from reaching the keeper. This rule, as reiterated by Sunil Gavaskar, is a little in favour of batsmen.
Instead of giving extra runs to the batting team in such a scenario, a possible suggestion may be to map the trajectory of the ball being thrown, to see whether it would be in the arc of the stumps or the wicket-keepers gloves. This too may backfire because it would be seemingly unfair on both teams with the immensity of possibilities (keeper not collecting the ball cleanly, fielder diving and stopping it etc). Another suggestion may be to consider the ball to be a dead ball, which may possibly act against the interest of one or perhaps both the teams.
This is going to be a tough decision to take for the ICC. Let us leave it to their wisdom to amend the laws in such a manner that both batsmen and bowlers are given equal respect!
2. SUPER OVER FOR ODIS?
There had been a total of 37 tied matches in ODIs until that eventful day, including 4 in World Cups. None of them had gone into the Super Over. Who would have imagined that a final could also end up in a deadlock? Even if a few would have imagined that, a super over definitely seemed out of question. Moreover, to also imagine the super over to get tied, and everything coming down to boundary count would have needed some acclaimed astrologer's prophecy. But, on that day, nearly every possibility turned into reality. The match did end as a tie, and deservedly so. Both teams played amazingly, and there was literally nothing to separate them.
The question is: Can Super overs be used to decide the winners of ODI matches?
Can one over undo the hardwork of a team that has put in considerable efforts over 100 overs?
The concept of super over was introduced in 2008 to replace the bowl out system. But, this was specifically meant for T20 matches. Now, the fact remains that T20s are largely played for generating revenue. Yes, talent is also unearthed in the process, but the fact that T20s are crowd-pullers perhaps supersedes the former. Thus, to edify and satisfy the crowd, getting a result in T20s becomes a necessity.
Can such a concept be applied to ICC events, more specifically, to the ICC Cricket World Cup, and even more specifically, to a World Cup Final? This is the pinnacle of cricket. This is what teams and players work hard for. The reason ODIs are played is to appreciate grit and determination. A 160 ball 100, would definitely be of more consequence than a quickfire 15 off 4 balls.
Thus, what needs to be deliberated upon is whether super overs fit into the context of ODI cricket.
Can there be an alternative? We shall find out a little later...
3. BOUNDARY COUNT:
After a tied super over, it was England who managed to pip the Kiwis thanks to their superior boundary count (26 boundaries in contrast to New Zealand's 16). Here also many questions can be raised:-
References-
1. https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/wimbledon-cricket-world-cup-tv-viewing-figures-bbc-channel-4-sky-sports-online-a9005371.html
2. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/394419/cricket-world-cup-final-contentious-overthrow-explained
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tied_One_Day_Internationals
Images- Cricbuzz
World Cup Final...Lords Cricket Stadium...Wimbledon final...Roger Federer...Centre Court...What more can a sports lover ask for? Add to that the level of intensity and the margins that separated the winners from the (don't wish to, but have to call them) losers!
14th July 2019 shall undoubtedly go down as one of the greatest days in sporting history. The level of athleticism and sportsmanship spirit was something any 'true' sports lover would relish.
So, which game was more enthralling? That is really difficult to answer. Statistics suggest that the Wimbledon game was watched by a peak of 9.6 million viewers, while the peak viewership for the ICC Cricket World Cup final was 8.6 million. This suggests that the Wimbledon match beat the cricket match in viewership (or tennis beat cricket...for once:)
But, surely, the World Cup final has left the most number of 'talking points' for people to endlessly debate upon. Three days on, the final moments of the game... Super over...Jofra Archer bowling a sizzling yorker, Guptill playing it to square leg, rushing back for the second, Buttler removing the bails, England ecstatic, New Zealand distraught. Ah, those moments still flash back for many fans.
 |
| The emotions that characterised the final |
But, as every significant moment does, Twitter has been abuzz with comments regarding the ICC, Umpires, rules and so on. Players, coaches, former umpires, analysts, commentators...everyone is having their say on what manifested on the field. I am sure you too may be a little confused. So, in this blog, I will try and help you understand the situation better and give you a balanced picture of the issues that have arisen after the final.
Congratulations England!
Firstly, we must all shove aside our opinions, step aside and applaud this English team for making such a dream comeback and winning their first ever World Cup. Mid-way through the tournament, after losses to Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Australia, their dreams of winning the World Cup seemed to be hanging by a thread. But, their victory over India gave them the morale to go on to defeat New Zealand and Australia and reach the finals, where they managed to win, though by a whisker. Whatever said and done, after an abysmal performance in 2015, this is a tribute to the hard work put in by the management and the board, which includes unsung heroes like Trevor Bayliss and Andrew Strauss. Hearty congratulations for such an astounding performance.
Respect#New Zealand!
New Zealand always comes into tournaments as underdogs, and then punches above its weight. How near was this team to creating history? Perhaps an inch, or a deflection here and there...But, whatever said and done, the players, led by the ever astute and humble Kane Williamson, showed indomitable spirit. Inspite of their batsmen badly faltering for a larger part of the competition, their bowlers supplemented by Williamson's brilliance with the bat, earned them a place in the final. Inspite of falling just short of winning the coveted trophy, the team has definitely won millions of hearts!
THE FINAL!
Now, let us come to the most controversial of all discussions: The Final. There were so many talking points, but let us first applaud the quality of cricket played that day! Who would have imagined a final going down to a Super Over? The script for this game was surely written somewhere in the heavens.
There were 4 talking points in this game. Let us discuss each one of them in detail:-
1. THE INADVERTENT, DEFLECTED SIX:
15 runs needed off 4 balls. Kane Williamson has one hand on the cup. Trent Boult has bowled two consecutive dot balls. Pressure on Ben Stokes. Next ball, Stokes swings, times it beautifully, and the ball goes into the stands. Pressure releaser!
9 needed off 3 balls!
Next ball, Stokes plays it to deep mid wicket, where Martin Guptill has been stationed. Guptill throws it at the striker's end, where Stokes is rushing to get back on strike. He dives, the ball hits his bat and rushes into the third-man fence. Stokes raises his arms and apologises. The umpire signals six runs. Everyone is stunned. The World Cup has turned on its head.
 |
| The moment that changed the game on its head! |
Now, the law states that if there is an inadvertent deflection off the bat, then the runs would be counted, and that was exactly what happened. If Stokes would have changed his line and blocked the ball from hitting the stumps, he would have been given out obstructing the field. But, he had dived to prevent himself from getting out, and this was completely inadvertent. Now, this is a weird situation, that may not have struck the officials in the ICC until that moment. It may be giving them and the Kiwi players nightmares at present!
Instead of playing the blame-game, let us carefully understand the law. According to law 19.8, in such circumstances, the runs completed by the batsmen at the time of the throw should be counted, and thus, it should have been signalled as 5 runs, instead of 6. One might consider 1 run to be insignificant, but in that game, it surely did make a difference. But, it might be unfair to blame the umpires for that decision. We often say that players are under pressure, but must remember, that umpires too are equally under the pump, and thus would have taken such a decision at the heat of the moment. They could have referred it upstairs, and infact should have done that! But, that is for later discussion.
The more contentious issue is the word 'inadvertent', in this case used with reference to the batsman.
If performing any act inadvertently is considered pardonable in the game of cricket, shouldn't bowlers also be pardoned for bowling no-balls. This might sound a little extreme, but the fact is that bowlers (unless indulging in unwarranted activities) don't bowl no-balls on purpose, very much the manner in which Stokes did not intend to block the ball from reaching the keeper. This rule, as reiterated by Sunil Gavaskar, is a little in favour of batsmen.
Instead of giving extra runs to the batting team in such a scenario, a possible suggestion may be to map the trajectory of the ball being thrown, to see whether it would be in the arc of the stumps or the wicket-keepers gloves. This too may backfire because it would be seemingly unfair on both teams with the immensity of possibilities (keeper not collecting the ball cleanly, fielder diving and stopping it etc). Another suggestion may be to consider the ball to be a dead ball, which may possibly act against the interest of one or perhaps both the teams.
This is going to be a tough decision to take for the ICC. Let us leave it to their wisdom to amend the laws in such a manner that both batsmen and bowlers are given equal respect!
2. SUPER OVER FOR ODIS?
There had been a total of 37 tied matches in ODIs until that eventful day, including 4 in World Cups. None of them had gone into the Super Over. Who would have imagined that a final could also end up in a deadlock? Even if a few would have imagined that, a super over definitely seemed out of question. Moreover, to also imagine the super over to get tied, and everything coming down to boundary count would have needed some acclaimed astrologer's prophecy. But, on that day, nearly every possibility turned into reality. The match did end as a tie, and deservedly so. Both teams played amazingly, and there was literally nothing to separate them.
The question is: Can Super overs be used to decide the winners of ODI matches?
Can one over undo the hardwork of a team that has put in considerable efforts over 100 overs?
The concept of super over was introduced in 2008 to replace the bowl out system. But, this was specifically meant for T20 matches. Now, the fact remains that T20s are largely played for generating revenue. Yes, talent is also unearthed in the process, but the fact that T20s are crowd-pullers perhaps supersedes the former. Thus, to edify and satisfy the crowd, getting a result in T20s becomes a necessity.
Can such a concept be applied to ICC events, more specifically, to the ICC Cricket World Cup, and even more specifically, to a World Cup Final? This is the pinnacle of cricket. This is what teams and players work hard for. The reason ODIs are played is to appreciate grit and determination. A 160 ball 100, would definitely be of more consequence than a quickfire 15 off 4 balls.
Thus, what needs to be deliberated upon is whether super overs fit into the context of ODI cricket.
Can there be an alternative? We shall find out a little later...
3. BOUNDARY COUNT:
After a tied super over, it was England who managed to pip the Kiwis thanks to their superior boundary count (26 boundaries in contrast to New Zealand's 16). Here also many questions can be raised:-
- Are boundaries considered to be more important than singles and twos?
- Should inside edges or 'inadvertent' (ah, that word!) boundaries also be considered in such a scenario (if one would have observed closely, there were 3 to four boundaries hit by England that went off the inside edge)
This leads to one final issues that perhaps sums up the controversies mentioned above:
4. DO WE ALWAYS NEED A WINNER?
Victory is such an important component of sport. After all, that is what is the ultimate target of athletes who compete with each other. In most sports, whenever there is a tie, the winner is decided either by a tiebreaker (as in tennis and archery) or penalties (as in football). A super over can be considered to be the equivalent of a tie-breaker, in cricket.
| The 2002 Champions Trophy title was shared between India and Sri Lanka |
A suggestion made by many people is that the title can be shared by both the teams. The rationale behind this idea is that if at the end of the day, there is nothing to separate two teams, why not give both of them the reward for matching each other in all facets? This perhaps seems like the most ideal situation, as it is a win-win scenario. Then why is it not followed? Is it to please spectators with a definitive result? Possibly. Does the media play a role here? Maybe not, because anyways, copywriters would have had an even more exciting caption for a shared world cup. But, this has perhaps got more to do with the psychology of players. Would the players be happy sharing the cup with someone else after doing so much of hardwork over seven weeks?
Let us take an example here. Think of two boys in dire need of some food. They find out that there is a mango tree somewhere far off, which has only one mango on it. Both travel for about 7 hours, determined and focussed on eating a mango. They reach the mango tree at the same time, and now would need to share that mango.
Such an act may be performed out of compassion and rightfulness. But, we must remember that in such situations, the hunger of the boys may not get satiated. Similarly, if we consider the two boys to be the two teams that competed in the final, and if they hypothetically would have shared the trophy, such feelings of inadequacy may have arisen.
- Another alternative is to make the team that won in the game in the group stages the winner (in this case, England). This is what happened in the semi final in 1999, where Australia tied the match with South Africa, and the former went through having beaten the latter in the group stages, This too might seem unfair on a team that has overcome the pressure of a final to match its opponent shot for shot (and even outplay it on occasions)
These questions raised in this blog surely need to come up for discussion sooner rather than later. Rather than passing cavalier comments, one needs to go in depth and objectively understand the issues at hand. As you might have understood, the intention of this blog is not to give any opinions, but instead to make you look at the issues from various view-points. If you are a cricket fan, you must surely try and come up with some unique solution that can help the ICC make some amendments in their rules.
THANK YOU ICC!
THANK YOU ICC!
At the moment, many of us are forgetting that the ICC has just conducted a phenomenal World Cup; one that shall last in our memory for ages to come. Instead of always criticising the international body, let us just pause and appreciate it for making this World Cup the spectacle that it turned out to be. There are many questions that have risen out of these worst-case scenarios manifesting themselves on the field, that too in the biggest stage of them all. Let us give the ICC confidence and strength to take wise decisions that shall ensure that such situations don't arise in the future.
Hope you enjoyed reading this blog. I would like you to share your views in the comments section. It would be a pleasure reading them...
Do follow me on Instagram- anirudh.naveen.0305
Youtube- Anirudh Naveen
References-
1. https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/wimbledon-cricket-world-cup-tv-viewing-figures-bbc-channel-4-sky-sports-online-a9005371.html
2. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/394419/cricket-world-cup-final-contentious-overthrow-explained
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tied_One_Day_Internationals
Images- Cricbuzz
Comments
Post a Comment