No. In absolute terms they're the same score. A few years ago it would have been considered 'better' in the sense that winning was decided on wickets lost, but now they've gone for an equally arbitrary means of deciding between tied teams.Originally Posted by Sir C
The logic is that wickets lost unfairly penalises the chasing side because they will sometimes have to sacrifice wickets in order to achieve the total (as England did yesterday), while the side batting first won't generally do this. It's therefore considered better to use a measure that favours neither side and which encourages positive cricket.
Ultimately, any measure you use is silly and arbitrary, but you have to have something.After all, you could equally argue that NZ should have lost the Super Over on the basis that they lost a wicket and England didn't.
Reply With Quote