There has been a lot of recent discussion about the use of
head to head results as a tiebreaker when two teams are
equal on points.
What is wrong with this method? It certainly seems a
reasonable way to break a tie, but it can have a number of
unfortunate side effects. The most bizarre is that a match
can affect the relative placings of two teams who were not
actually playing.
For example, suppose there are 4 teams, A, B, C and D.
They are in the order ABCD and there is one match still to
play, between C and D. C wins this match and the final order
is BACD. I think that most people would agree that this is a
ridiculous outcome, but it is what can happen when using
head-to-head.
What to use as a tiebreak? Here are some thoughts:
1. Use bonus points in a modified form, as follows:
i) points (not bonus points)
ii) fewest bonus points conceded
iii) most bonus points gained
iv) NRR
2. S***bonus points entirely and just use the NRR.
3. NRR has a problem in that it can't be used for a rain
shortened match. Instead of NRR, simply use the total
winning margin in runs. Duckworth/Lewis can be used to
determine the winning margin when the side batting second
wins. For example, in the first final SAf won with the score
at 2/191after 45.1 overs. The D/L par is 156, so SAf won by
35 runs. The advantage of D/L is that it can also be used in
a rain shortened match (the disadvantage is that it is
totally inscrutable to most normal people). This also may
eliminate any need for bonus points, as big wins/losses will
be accurately reflected (more accurately than just using
NRR).
And no, I'm not whingeing about Australia missing the
finals. This was a particularly unusual tournament, as the
three teams finished with the same number of wins and
identical win/loss ratios, so any tiebreak method will
produce an "unfair" result
Cheers,
Peter.
------------------
Peter Foster
Canberra, Australia