Agency :
The ICC World Cup 2019 final between England and New Zealand at Lord’s will be spoken about and remembered as the best final in ODI cricket, not only for the high quality cricket that was on display but also for the manner in which the contest was decided.
Hosts England eventually won their first ever men’s World Cup title because they had hit more boundaries than New Zealand and former ICC CEO Dave Richardson explained the rationale behind why that rule was implemented in the first place.
“The context of why that particular rule was put in place a few years ago goes back to when ODI cricket was criticised for becoming a bit boring. At that time, we were deciding rules for the Super Over and the suggestion was [to] look at creating something that encouraged attacking play and this was just one of the things introduced. [The thinking then was that] a tie in the Super Over would be very unlikely, so let us encourage attacking play,” Richardson told The Week.
The cricket fraternity has not minced their words when opining about how the tie in the Super Over should have been resolved but Richardson believes it is all about finding a winner and sharing the World Cup trophy did not go down well with him either.
“The bottom line is, we want matches to be as entertaining as possible. The Super Over provides that drama. There is no doubt that it is incredibly cruel to decide the game via a Super Over, but at the end it is about finding a winner. That is why people are so passionate about sport”.
The ICC World Cup 2019 final between England and New Zealand at Lord’s will be spoken about and remembered as the best final in ODI cricket, not only for the high quality cricket that was on display but also for the manner in which the contest was decided.
Hosts England eventually won their first ever men’s World Cup title because they had hit more boundaries than New Zealand and former ICC CEO Dave Richardson explained the rationale behind why that rule was implemented in the first place.
“The context of why that particular rule was put in place a few years ago goes back to when ODI cricket was criticised for becoming a bit boring. At that time, we were deciding rules for the Super Over and the suggestion was [to] look at creating something that encouraged attacking play and this was just one of the things introduced. [The thinking then was that] a tie in the Super Over would be very unlikely, so let us encourage attacking play,” Richardson told The Week.
The cricket fraternity has not minced their words when opining about how the tie in the Super Over should have been resolved but Richardson believes it is all about finding a winner and sharing the World Cup trophy did not go down well with him either.
“The bottom line is, we want matches to be as entertaining as possible. The Super Over provides that drama. There is no doubt that it is incredibly cruel to decide the game via a Super Over, but at the end it is about finding a winner. That is why people are so passionate about sport”.
