What a game of cricket! And in the end, the best team won, or did it? Was England the better team on the day of the final? On paper yes! But surely not at the end of the day. Surely not!
Cricket is a simple sport. One team hits 'X' number of runs and the other team has to score 'X+1' number of runs within the stipulated number of overs. There are different modes of scoring a run. You can run. You can hit a ball hard enough so that it reaches the boundary and you can hit the ball long enough it goes over the boundary. Simple, right?
So what if the second team also scores the same 'X' number of runs scored by the first team? Just share the trophy! It is a tie. Is it that complex? Well, I agree we need a winner! Okay, then let them play one over each. Like overtime in football and basketball. So what if it keeps happening again and again and again. I mean the super overs keep getting tied again and again. Then stop the game and share the trophy. Football does it all the time. So does hockey.
Suddenly ICC and cricket management decides that if the super over gets tied, the number of boundaries is counted and the winner is decided on the team which has scored more boundaries. So what if I run four runs, will that be counted as a boundary? MS Dhoni the greatest finisher in the world, has won matches single-handedly just by running ones and twos. I remember a match which he scored a fifty without hitting a boundary. How is that a lesser inning than a somebody who has scored the same number of runs by scoring seven boundaries?
What if Federer and Djokovic were playing the final set 12-12. So, shall we stop the game and decide the winner on the number of Aces made by one of them?
Sport in itself cruel. The amount of pressure and the pain the body of the players take is huge. Let not stupid rules play spoilsport. If at the end of the day both the players or teams are considered equal on the basis of the basic rules of the game, just share the trophy. There is nothing wrong in saying both of them were equally good.
Why should we always have one winner?
Cricket is a simple sport. One team hits 'X' number of runs and the other team has to score 'X+1' number of runs within the stipulated number of overs. There are different modes of scoring a run. You can run. You can hit a ball hard enough so that it reaches the boundary and you can hit the ball long enough it goes over the boundary. Simple, right?
So what if the second team also scores the same 'X' number of runs scored by the first team? Just share the trophy! It is a tie. Is it that complex? Well, I agree we need a winner! Okay, then let them play one over each. Like overtime in football and basketball. So what if it keeps happening again and again and again. I mean the super overs keep getting tied again and again. Then stop the game and share the trophy. Football does it all the time. So does hockey.
Suddenly ICC and cricket management decides that if the super over gets tied, the number of boundaries is counted and the winner is decided on the team which has scored more boundaries. So what if I run four runs, will that be counted as a boundary? MS Dhoni the greatest finisher in the world, has won matches single-handedly just by running ones and twos. I remember a match which he scored a fifty without hitting a boundary. How is that a lesser inning than a somebody who has scored the same number of runs by scoring seven boundaries?
What if Federer and Djokovic were playing the final set 12-12. So, shall we stop the game and decide the winner on the number of Aces made by one of them?
Sport in itself cruel. The amount of pressure and the pain the body of the players take is huge. Let not stupid rules play spoilsport. If at the end of the day both the players or teams are considered equal on the basis of the basic rules of the game, just share the trophy. There is nothing wrong in saying both of them were equally good.
Why should we always have one winner?
No comments:
Post a Comment