Tie-break travesties

July 14 is Bastille Day. On that day in 1789 Parisians marched on to that infamous jail to start the French Revolution. On the same day 230 years later, the capital across the English Channel, London, witnessed unbelievable sports events which the cognoscenti may someday call equally revolutionary.  Or revolting, take your pick.

Last Sunday, at about 7.20 pm, the world's premier cricket tournament, the quadrennial International Cricket Conference World Cup, produced no winner after months of preliminary matches, 52 matches in the Cup proper and 102 overs of the final at Lord's in London NW 8. Just moments before, a few kilometres south, at Wimbledon in London SW 19, the world's premier tennis tournament, the All-England Lawn Tennis Championship, produced no winner either in the men's event after weeks of qualifying rounds, six rounds of the tournament proper comprising 126 matches and five sets (equivalent to six, since the fifth set was an extended 12-all affair). Both these uber prestigious tournaments used tie-breaks they have adopted recently (really works in progress) to decide their respective champions from among the two contestants who laid equal claim to the trophies.  The winners were both pre-tournament favourites of the experts and the ubiquitous bookies as well, but the losers won the admiration and hearts of the true lovers of the sport.

If these were not coincidences enough, the twists and turns the finals produced were remarkably similar. Even those Bollywood schlock-meisters, Manmohan Desai and David Dhawan, who built their oeuvres almost entirely on fantastic coincidences, would have found these parallels outrageous.

Things began rather sedately. New Zealand won the toss, elected to bat, and reached 241 for eight in their 50 overs. No fireworks or no collapses in batting, just steady if a tad slow march (we learnt later that Ross Taylor of New Zealand felt 260 would be a challenging score). The tennis match began roughly two-and-a-half hours later. The defending champion Novak Djokovic, and the number two seed and the world number three Roger Federer, played a disciplined, if unexciting, game, holding on to their serves. After almost an hour, Djokovic took the first set on a tie-breaker, 7-5. That was when the New Zealand innings finished. England were expected to overhaul the score easily. A commentator said that while he would love to see Federer win three of the next four sets, he didn't think that would happen.

The underdogs clawed back then.  New Zealand reduced England to 86 for four in over 24, with 156 runs still to get, a tough ask. Federer made easy meat of Djokovic in the second set, winning it 6-1 with three service breaks. But the pendulum swung back. Jos Buttler joined Ben Stokes at Lord’s and the duo steadily reconstructed the England innings. The third set at Wimbledon produced long rallies, but no fireworks or breaks (Federer could not convert his one opportunity).  Djokovic again won the tie-breaker, 7-4.

Buttler got out in over 45, after a 110-run partnership and New Zealand rightly saw an opening, although the English tail was fully capable of wagging. Federer broke Djokovic in the fourth game of the fourth set, but the latter returned the compliment in the very next game. Federer got another service break in the eighth game and won the set 6-4. Even Stevens so far.

Now to the nail biting suspense. Last over of the scheduled game for England, 3 balls, 9 runs to get.  Stokes took two on the next ball and lay spread-eagled as he scrambled home. The throw from Martin Guptil hit the toe of Stokes' outstretched bat and the ball sped to the boundary. England happily took the 6 runs whichever way they came. The perplexed expression on the face of the New Zealand skipper Kane Williamson seemed to acknowledge that the game was slipping away from them. The fifth set at Wimbledon reached 6-all after an exchange of breaks and the tie-breaker was to be applied if the score was still tied at 12-all. Federer got the all important break in the fifteenth game and was two points away from the championship in the next game at 40-15. Djokovic then amazingly won four straight points, handing back the break to Federer. Stoic though the Swiss champion was, he did seem to sense he was not going to make it. These decisive moments were virtually simultaneous.

The England innings ended at 241 all out, requiring a super over. The Wimbledon match reached its predestined 12-all score, calling for a tie-break.  The super over also ended in a tie. England won because they had scored more boundaries than their opponents. The flagging Federer lost the tie-break 7-3 and Djokovic defended his title successfully.

Aficionados like this writer were deeply dismayed by these outcomes.  Federer won more rallies, more points, more games, and yet lost. New Zealand were victims of an arbitrary ploy to break the tie. Why not declare joint winners in such rarest of rare cases?  

After Westminster Abbey and Buckingham Castle, Wimbledon and Lord's are the two most iconic bastions of living English heritage. They tried to buck tradition last Sunday and ended up causing grave dissatisfaction to die-hard fans.

Every week, Eye Culture features writers with an entertaining critical take on art, music, dance, film and sport