How to resolve ties in cricket matches in future world cups? —An in depth review of the tie-breaking methods used in other sports to identify the best way forward for cricket
Sunday, 14th of July, 2019 became a memorable day for the fans of Cricket and Tennis as they had the rare privilege of witnessing two of the greatest matches in the history of sports at London just 9miles apart from each other. While the hosts England challenged New Zealand for their maiden Cricket World Cup title at Lords, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic battled it out for the prestigious Wimbledon gentleman’s singles title at SW19.
At Wimbledon, we witnessed the first ever fifth set tie-breaker when all-time greats Federer and Djokovic was tied at 12–12 in final set after sharing the first four sets. Defending Champion Djokovic edged out eight time champion Federer 7–6(7–5), 1–6, 7–6(7–4), 4–6, 13–12(7–3) in the longest singles final in Wimbledon history which lasted four hours and 57 minutes. Even though, some fans were disappointed about Federer losing despite having two Championship points on server at 8–7 (40–15) in the fifth set, there were no complains about the tie-break methodology used to select the winner.
On contrary, there was much debate about how the winner was chosen in the cricket world cup final at Lords. After an exciting game, that could’ve gone either way, England had to score 2 runs of the final ball of the 50th over to seal the win with Ben Stokes on strike. However, New Zealand managed restrict England to a single by running out Mark Wood at the non-strikers end. This resulted in the use of a “Super Over” in One Day International (ODI) cricket for the first time and the super over also ended in a tie when Martin Guptill was run out at the strikers end while trying to complete the second run. Therefore, England was declared winners of the Cricket World Cup 2019 based on a superior boundary count of 26–17. Unlike the Wimbledon tie-breaker, many experts, past players and fans expressed their disappointment in the boundary count rule calling it inaccurate and unfair.
To be fair by ICC the rules given below was announced prior to the tournament and all teams agreed upon the process.
1. In the event of a tie, teams will play a “Super Over” (also known as “one-over eliminator”) where both teams play an additional over of six balls to determine the winner of the match. Each team selects three batsmen, giving them two wickets for their Super Over. The team who batted second in the match bats first in the Super Over.
2. In the event of a Super Over tie, the team that hit more boundaries (combined from the main match and the Super Over) shall be the winner.
3. If the number of boundaries hit by both teams is equal, the team whose batsmen scored more boundaries during its innings in the main match (ignoring the Super Over) shall be the winner.
4. If still equal, a count-back from the final ball of the Super Over will be conducted. The team with the higher scoring delivery shall be the winner. If a team loses two wickets during its over, then any unbowled deliveries will be counted as dot balls.
As ties are not frequent in cricket, awareness and discussions regarding the tie-breaking methods have been limited among experts and fans. Therefore, this article intend to review the methodologies used by other major sports to identify the key attributes that constitutes a fair method of tie-breaking, in order to arrive at a more suitable method to resolve ties in cricket going forward.
Let’s review the methodologies used in other major sports. Sports where ties are common tend to have the best tie-breaking methods.
Soccer
Ties are extremely frequent in major soccer tournaments such as FIFA world cup, European championship, and UEFA champions league. Three of the last four World Cup finals (2006, 2010 and 2014) used either extra time or penalty kicks to select the eventual winner.
In soccer, extra time and penalty kicks are used resolve ties in knockout stages. Extra time consists of two 15 minute periods and the team which scores most goals during this period wins. 2010 FIFA world cup final was decided based on an extra time goal by Andrés Iniesta of Spain and in 2014 a goal by Mario Gotze in the 113th minute sealed the title in favor of Germany.
If Extra time fail to resolve the tie, match goes to a penalty shootout. In a penalty shootout, each team has five shots with the goal only defended by the opposing team’s goalkeeper. All kicks must be taken by different players. Team with higher number of successful kicks wins the contest at the end of 5 kicks or as soon as one team has an unassailable lead. If scores are level after five pairs of shots, the shootout progresses into additional “sudden-death” rounds until a winner is decided. Brazil beat Italy in 1994 world cup finals after a penalty shootout and Italy beat France in 2006 final in the same manner.
Previously, “Golden goal” rule was used in 1998 and 2002 world cups to ensure more attacking football in extra time. This rule introduced a “sudden death” format where first team to score a goal in extra time wins the game. First golden goal in World Cup history took place in 1998, when Laurent Blanc scored to enable France to defeat Paraguay in the Round of 16. In 2002, this rule was changed to a “Silver Goal”, where the team leading after the first fifteen-minute period of the extra time would win the game. Both these systems were later discarded in 2004, as it didn’t allow the conceding team an opportunity to comeback and in certain cases one team could benefit unfairly from the conditions (e.g., strong wind from one end).
In addition, in two-leg, home-and-away fixtures (e.g., UEFA champions league knockout stages), winner can be chosen based on the “away goals rule”. Also, some knockout competitions, such as the FA Cup still use full match replays to break ties.
Rugby union
In Rugby World Cup knockout stages, if the teams are tied after 80 minutes, additional 20 minutes (two 10 minute periods) of extra time is played to decide a winner. In 2003 Rugby World Cup final, Jonny Wilkinson kicked a memorable drop goal in the last minute of extra time to win the championship for England.
If the scores remain tied after extra time, additional 10 minutes played where the first team to score points (through a try, penalty or a drop goal) during this period will be declared as winners. If no points are scored in this sudden-death period, the match will be decided through a kicking competition. In this stage, 5 nominated players from each team will place kick from three different points, all on the 22 meter line, as follows:
· First point: directly in front of the posts
· Second point: on the 15-metre line on the left-hand side facing the posts
· Third point: on the 15-metre line on the right-hand side facing the posts
If teams are still tied after five place kicks, the competition continues on a “sudden-death” basis until a winner is chosen.
Rugby Sevens
In Rugby sevens, 5 minutes of extra time is played on a “sudden-death” basis, with the first score by either team winning the match. If the first period of extra time fails to produce a winner, teams change ends and play multiple 5 minute periods until a team scores points.
Tennis
A tennis match is composed of points, games, and sets. To win a tennis match, a player/team needs to win majority of the prescribed number of sets. Most matches employ a best-of-three (first to win two sets wins) format, while grand slam men’s singles and doubles matches uses a best-of-five (first to win three sets wins) set format. Each set consists of a minimum of 6 games, first player to win six games with a margin of at least 2 games over the other wins the set. When a score in a set is tied at 6–6, a tie-breaker is played to decide the set.
A tennis tie-breaker is a shortened version of a set where first player to win 7 or more points with an advantage two points wins the set. In the tie-breaker, the player due to serve the 13th game serves the first point. After the first serve, the serve goes over to the other player, who then serves the next two points and then service changes after every two points. Players change ends after six points are played.
However, until 2018 grand slam tournaments other than US Open refrained from using the tiebreak in the 5th set. Since service breaks are difficult in grass and hard surfaces, this rule paved the way to some of the longest matches in history, such as the 2010 Wimbledon Championships first round match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut. In total, this match lasted 11 hours and 5 minutes of play over three days, with a final score of 6–4, 3–6, 6–7(7–9), 7–6(7–3), 70–68. Since, this match took place in the early stages of the tournament with two players that were not fancied to win the championship, Wimbledon didn’t decide to adopt tie breakers based on this result.
However, after the 2018 Wimbledon semifinal between Kevin Anderson and John Isner, which lasted 6 hours 36 minutes, with a final score of 7–6(8–6), 6–7(5–7), 6–7(9–11), 6–4, 26–24, effectively ended Anderson’s chances of being competitive in the final due to fatigue, Wimbledon and Australian open decided to use 5th set tie-breakers from 2019. While, Australian open used a 10 point tie-breaker when the 5th set score reached 6–6, Wimbledon proposed a traditional 7 point tie-breaker when the 5th set reached 12–12. As of 2019, French Open remains the only tournament that does not utilize any form of a tie-break for singles in the final set.
Basketball
FIBA World Cup and NBA games use five-minute overtime period to resolve the tie. If the scores remain tied after a the first overtime period, multiple five minute overtime periods are played until the tie is resolved.
Field Hockey
According to International Hockey Federation rules, tied games in knockout competitions uses a Penalty shoot-out competition to determine a winner. In this scenario, each team nominates five players to attack and each attacker gets a chance to run with the ball in a one-on-one situation against the goalkeeper. Each attacker starts on the 23-metre line, when the whistle is blown, both attacker and goal keeper can move and the attacker has 8 seconds to score a goal.
Unlike a penalty stroke or penalty corner there are no restrictions on strokes the attacker may use to score and a goal is scored in the usual way. If the attacker commits an offense, the ball travels outside the field of play, or 8 seconds elapse before the ball crosses the line a goal is not awarded. However, if the goalkeeper unintentionally fouls the attacker then the penalty shoot-out is re-taken; in the event the foul was intentional a penalty stroke is awarded. If scores are tied after five penalties, it progresses to sudden-death until a winner is established.
Previously, Field hockey used two 7.5 minute periods of extra time to resolve ties using the “Golden goal rule”, followed by a penalty stroke competition (penalty is taken from a fix position 6.4m away from the goal) if the extra time failed to deliver a winner.
Baseball
Baseball uses extra innings to resolve ties. If a single extra inning fails to determine a winner, multiple extra innings are played until the tie is resolved. The longest professional baseball game between the Pawtucket Red Sox and the Rochester Red Wings, required 24 extra innings (33 innings in total) and lasted 8 hours and 25 minutes of playing time.
Based on the processes used in the sports discussed above, we can arrive at few key elements that constitute a successful tie-breaking methodology;
· Method used to break the tie should emulate the standard playing arrangements and rules that were used in the normal time (e.g., concepts such as extra time, overtime and super over are shortened versions of the format that was played during the normal playing time)
· Teams participating should have an equal chance of winning the tie at the beginning of the tie-breaker — process should not allow an unfair advantage to a certain team due rules and regulations
· Method should not rely on unrelated events that took place earlier in the game (e.g., use of boundary count in cricket, use of total points or number of winners in tennis, use of shots on target in soccer, etc.)
· Sudden death rules (e.g., Golden goal) should be used as a last resort — process should allow some recovery time to players/teams that make mistakes early in the tie-breaking process
Let’s look back at the tie-break methods used in Cricket in past
As mentioned previously, ties are rare in cricket as it took 83 years and 498 matches to witness the first tied test in history between Australia and West Indies in 1960 (Match details). As of today, there have been only two tied tests. In addition, there are two more tests which ended when time expired with the scores level in the fourth innings, but with the batting side still having wickets in hand (Zimbabwe vs. England in 1996 and India vs. the West Indies in 2011).
However, the shorter formats have offered more tied games. The first tied ODI was also between Australia and West Indies (Match details) and it only took 13 years and 247 matches since the inception of ODIs. The first tied Twenty20 International (T20I) took place one year after its beginning on the 5th game of the history between New Zealand and West Indies (Match Details).
As the sport encountered more tied games, organizers have tried out multiple methods to determine winners.
Team that lost fewer wickets wins the tie
First instance to use this rule, took place on March 20, 1987 when India was declared winners over Pakistan in a controversial that ended with scores leveled at 212. India only lost 6 wickets, whereas Pakistan lost 7. However, lost their seventh wicket on the last ball trying to attempt a non-existent second run to win the game (Match details). According to this rule, if both teams lost equal number of wickets they looked back at the score at the end of the 25th over, and the team that scored most number of runs at that point would be declared as the winner.
In addition to the match mentioned earlier, game between Australia and Pakistan held on 14th October 1988 was decided based on this rule with Pakistan ending as the winner (Match details).
Criticism — This method is obviously unfair to the team batting second as they will be focusing on the win and likely to lose wickets at the last few overs due to unnecessary run outs and attempted risky shots. Best example would be the 2019 world cup final where England lost Adil Rashid and Mark Wood in the last two balls attempting risky second runs to win the game. Therefore, this approach was discarded by ICC.
Head to head record, number of wins or net run rate based on the preliminary rounds
Before the 2019 world cup final, the most memorable world cup encounter took place between Australia and South Africa in the 1999 world cup semifinal at Edgbaston, Birmingham (Match details). South African team that had a great world cup campaign up to that point was eliminated after Allan Donald was run out for a duck after a mix up with Lance Klusener with two balls remaining in the last over bowled by Damian Fleming.
The elimination of South Africa was based on the result of the final super six game (Match details), where Steve Waugh scored a majestic 120 not out to lead Australia to semifinals after Herschelle Gibbs dropped him when he was on 56. This incident is remembered for the famous “Hersh, you’ve just dropped the World Cup” quote from Steve Waugh according to Wisden Almanack’s match report, although both players have confirmed the exact words might not have been used at the ground.
Criticism — When it comes to the knockout stages what happens in the previous stages should be irrelevant as those results would’ve been affected by weather conditions and standings. Good example would be the 1999 super six game between South Africa and Australia. That game was the last game of the super six round and South Africa went to the game knowing that they have already qualified for the knockout stages based on the previous results. Therefore, complacency could’ve affected the outcome of the game.
Especially, teams that qualify for the knockout stages early will be inclined to provide some opportunities to their reserve players allowing the key performers to take adequate rest before knockouts, resulting in losses or close results in dead rubbers. Also, this system is unfair to teams that peak at the later stages of the tournament (e.g., Pakistan team in 1992 world cup) who might’ve conceded few losses in the initial few games. In addition, weather interventions such as washouts can also have a significant impact on the outcome when this methodology is used.
Therefore ideally, usage of previous results should be avoided in knockout stages of a tournament as it will present an unfair advantage to one team compared to the other based on an unrelated (sometimes non-consequential) previous event.
Bowl-out
ICC decided to introduce the bowl-out to resolve ties in the semifinals and final of the 2006 ICC Champions Trophy and the 2007 Cricket World Cup, although it was unused in both tournaments. The “bowl-out” which was first used in NatWest Trophy in 1991, utilize a format inspired by penalty shootout in soccer, which involves five bowlers from each side deliver one ball each at an unguarded wicket. If each team has hit the same number of wickets after the first five bowlers per side, the bowling continues and is decided by sudden death.
Most memorable bowl-out took place between India and Pakistan, on 14th September 2007 in the inaugural ICC World Twenty20 (Match details). In this encounter, India defeated Pakistan 3–0 using part time spinners Virender Sehwag and Robin Uthappa, when Pakistan’s most experienced bowlers Arafat, Gul and Afridi missed the target.
Criticism — “Bowl-out” failed because the format used is not a part of a normal playing conditions. Cricket is a game between bat and bowl and the bowl-out only considers the accuracy of bowling by taking the batsman out of the process. In comparison, penalty shootouts is part of soccer and it involves the goal keeper, ensuring the representation of attack and defense. Therefore, the system was replaced by “super over” in 2008.
Super over
A Super Over was first used in 2008 in a T20I between West Indies and New Zealand. West Indies won the game by 10 runs with Chris Gayle scoring 25 runs off Daniel Vettori (Match details). The format which is inspired by the extra time concept became popular as it presented an equal opportunity to both teams to win the game after the tie.
Criticism — Some disapprove the method with the view point of one over being insufficient to settle a tie of a 50 over game, which is a fair point as soccer allows 30 minutes of extra time (33% of normal playing time) and Rugby Union provide 20 minutes (25% of the playing time). Even though, a super over only covers 2% of the ODI’s normal duration, after a 7 hour game asking teams to continue for 5 over eliminator would be too long and would have adverse impact from weather related issues such as bad light.
Therefore, I believe “super over” concept will remain as the choice for breaking ties in ODI and T20I formats, as it is by far the best system that was introduced to cricket.
What happens when the Super over is also tied?
This is where the much criticized “boundary count” rule comes in to play. This system is unfair as cricket offers multiple modes of scoring runs and boundaries is only one form of that. Therefore, presenting a higher emphasize on the boundaries is a debatable factor, as the team that scored less boundaries can argue that they scored more consistently as they have lesser number of dot balls.
Conclusion — Ideal method to be used in future cricket world cups
Therefore, in future ICC should take a leaf out of Basketball rule book and use multiple super overs until the tie is resolved.
If there is a limitation in time or an impact from weather conditions, they should declare the teams involved as joint winners after a certain threshold of super overs (e.g., 3 or 5) are played. Even though, having a single undisputed winner would be the ideal outcome for a world championship, having joint winners is far better than ending tournament in a controversial manner.
Do you agree with this conclusion?
I would love to hear your thoughts. Leave a comment!
