SiriusBlack
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2011
I got to ask you this guys. How many of u felt the ICC rule of "Deciding a match winner with the help of boundaries when a super-over is tied" is absolutely unfair??
I really hope any (perceived) ‘hatred’ of England doesn’t stem from colonialism, I mean what do I, or any other England fan and player have to do with that?
I got to ask you this guys. How many of u felt the ICC rule of "Deciding a match winner with the help of boundaries when a super-over is tied" is absolutely unfair??
I would have felt happier if it has happened instead of deciding the winner based on the boundaries hit. Both the teams have given out what they have infact more than they have. Its really painful to see NZ ending on the other side though they were equal with ENG in everything that happened in the match. Hope ICC should take a look at this rule and think of making some changesThought about this for a while, but barring ‘number of wickets lost during the entire game’, any other reasonable criteria for separating the team like league positions, NRR, Head2Head record etc would have England as the clear winners. Not sure if it is that unfair now.
Personally believe that there should have been five overs to decide the winner instead of just one, but that is an entire discussion for another day.
Not exactly. I don't mind ENG or NZ win. Both the teams were equal in every department except the boundaries count & the wickets fell. I felt its not ideal to decide a winner like that. They would have conducted something like an Super-over again to decide the winner.Not unfair as it would have been part of the rules before games commenced so totally fair as both sides had the same opportunity to score boundaries.
Unsatisfying perhaps.