The semi-final clash between Australia and South Africa in 1999 was for long considered the greatest World Cup match ever played (‘Sport’ page, “Ecstasy for England, agony for New Zealand in a humdinger,” July 15). This Sunday’s contest, also hosted by England, can now lay its claims over the epithet. Following the humdinger, neither England nor New Zealand deserved to lose. It is a shame for cricket’s governing body that such a great match had to be decided on the basis of such a farcical metric. It is high time the International Cricket Council revisits its rule book to provide some predictability when it comes to giving closure to such fiercely fought encounters. However, for a cricket fan, it is heartening to see a new World Cup champion emerge for the first time since 1996.

L.S. Hareesh,

Chennai

A ‘Super Over’ at the end of a Cricket match is meant to decide the winner of a knock-out contest. But what happens if the tie-breaker itself ends up in a stalemate? England was handed over the World Cup by virtue of having scored more boundaries, a rule that needs to be revisited. Why couldn’t both teams have been declared winners and made to share the World Cup? Why should the result have caused ecstasy for one team and agony for the other when the performance, and the scores, were on such an even keel?

Victor Frank A.,

Chennai

The scores were: 241 for 8 for New Zealand and 241 all out for England. The Super-Over also resulted in a tie. Hence, to decide the result on the basis of a lone statistic of boundaries scored looked like a travesty. Both the teams could have been declared joint winners.

S.V.S. Mani,

Chennai

It was a feast for sport lovers as two high-profile events reached their climax in the same city, in the same style, within minutes of each other. The Cricket World Cup match provided unmatched thrills, a contest of equals where the dominance passed repeatedly from one team to the other in a seesaw battle that ended in an incredible tie. And then the Super Over also produced a tie, proving that there was little to choose between England and New Zealand. Then came the anticlimax. In the final of such a major event, there should have been a more sensible way to break the deadlock. An additional Super Over would not have been out of place. Even declaring the teams as joint winners was acceptable.

Around the same time at Wimbledon, Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic, produced a classic final (Sports page, “Djokovic leaves Federer heart-broken after epic finale”, July 15). Again, it was a match neither player deserved to lose. And again, a new rule to break the tie was the culprit.

P.P. Menon,

Kochi