Friday, April 24, 2009

Is it really that super?

I think I am OK with the Super Over from a mechanics perspective. It's basically like overtime in other sports. No problems there, it's a good idea.

My issue is with the match logistics and result. If the Super Over is a tie-breaker, then it should do exactly that - break the tie!

Yet, The result of the RR and KKR match stands as a tie, but Royals are awarded two points since they won the Super Over.

Two comments:

1) Why do we need a tie-breaker in this situation? Why not share the points - one point to each team? Unless you have a situation where a result is needed (e.g. a semi-final, final, knockout game, etc), there should be no Super Over. In ODIs, a tie is a tie. So, as Marc Anthony would say, let it be with T20.

2) If you have the Super Over, then Why can't the match be marked as a win for the team that wins it? This is not just IPL who has this problem, it's ICC as well. It happened in the T20 WC tied match between Pak and India. Match is still officially a tie, with India getting 2 points for winning the bowlout. Same with the recent NZ and WI match which went to a Super Over. Though it was made clear that the Super Over was for entertainment only, since there's no official ICC rule on tie-breakers.

In summary, Super Over makes sense if you need a result. But otherwise it seems to be pointless entertainment.

Make your pitch on this post...

Labels: , , , ,

2 Pitched:

  1. Amy said...

    Pointless entertainment is a synonym for the IPL.

  2. Q said...

    I didnt mind the Super Over.. it produced exciting stuff but I dont understand why the match result is a TIE.. it shud not be.. thats what needs to change IMO

Post a Comment