Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
All Other Sports
Cricket Thread
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Every Time Ref" data-source="post: 949401" data-attributes="member: 71826"><p>Did you watch the final? That's amazing, I'm so weirdly proud of our bizarre little sport somehow </p><p></p><p>To respond to your point - the thing is it's very hard to find a satisfactory version of "extra time" for cricket because the format is so uniquely different to </p><p></p><p>They used to award a tied game to whoever had the most wickets left, which is broadly in line with your idea (in principle). I can't remember exactly when it changed but for me that always made perfect sense to be honest I'm not sure why but was changed.</p><p></p><p>I think until recently all tied games in knockout tournaments were decided by a bowl off? That meant bowlers bowling at a stump without a batsman, just a weird, ****, pointless arbitrary tiebreak which fundamentally tested very few of the skills of cricket. I'm really glad that's gone.</p><p></p><p>Can't argue with the super over for drama and entertainment value though, I think today proved that...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Every Time Ref, post: 949401, member: 71826"] Did you watch the final? That’s amazing, I’m so weirdly proud of our bizarre little sport somehow To respond to your point - the thing is it’s very hard to find a satisfactory version of “extra time” for cricket because the format is so uniquely different to They used to award a tied game to whoever had the most wickets left, which is broadly in line with your idea (in principle). I can’t remember exactly when it changed but for me that always made perfect sense to be honest I’m not sure why but was changed. I think until recently all tied games in knockout tournaments were decided by a bowl off? That meant bowlers bowling at a stump without a batsman, just a weird, ****, pointless arbitrary tiebreak which fundamentally tested very few of the skills of cricket. I’m really glad that’s gone. Can’t argue with the super over for drama and entertainment value though, I think today proved that... [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
All Other Sports
Cricket Thread
Top