India vs Sri Lanka: The varying hues of emotions when a tie happens

It’s amazing how the same result, separated by four nights, can trigger vastly contrasting emotions in the same two teams involved in both matches.

On Tuesday at the Pallekele International Cricket Stadium, Sri Lanka looked a gift horse in the mouth. Needing 30 off the last five overs for a consolation win in the last Twenty20 International against India with nine wickets in hand, they somehow managed to make a hash of it, in the end scrambling to a tie after losing seven wickets for 29 runs. India felt they had got out of jail, Sri Lanka knew they had thrown away a victory. It was no surprise, therefore, that the Super Over showdown lasted a mere four deliveries, India romping home off the first delivery of their chase after the hosts managed just two runs in the decider.

The scene was so vastly different at the R Premadasa Stadium in Colombo on Friday, when the first One-Day International played itself out. When Rohit Sharma came out all guns blazing, it appeared as if Sri Lanka’s 230 for eight would be singularly insufficient. Then, as Sri Lanka’s spinners got into the act, that very total looked a bridge too far until a late assault from Shivam Dube, playing his first ODI since December 2019, brought India on par with the Lankan tally.

High drama at the end overs

With 15 deliveries remaining, India needed one run and had two wickets in hand. If one was a betting individual, the handsome money would have been on India to snatch a 1-0 lead in the three-match series.

Such, however, is the beauty of cricket that no match is lost till it’s won, no match is won till the proverbial fat lady has sung. Charith Asalanka, Sri Lanka’s captain who had chosen to go with his part-time off-spin because of the profusion of left-handers in the lower half of the Indian innings, must have second-guessed himself when Dube clattered him through covers to even up the scores. Did I do the right thing, Asalanka must have wondered, when he trudged in to bowl the fourth ball of his last over.

It was a delivery that went on with the angle and struck the left-hander on his front pad as Dube played off the back foot. As the ball trickled away to third man, Mohammed Siraj called Dube through for what could have been the winning leg-bye. Sri Lanka, convinced that the ball was sliding down leg, sought a review in desperation, because they thought they had nothing to lose. To their eternal delight, replays suggested that the ball would have smashed into leg-stump. Dube gone, India still needing one run for victory.

In walked Arshdeep Singh, India’s No. 11 but certainly no mug with the bat. At the T20 World Cup in June, he had played a couple of useful cameos; in his brief stint in international cricket, the pacer has revealed a good head on his shoulders. Surely, he would play the ball on its merit, look for the single instead of the glory shot?

Arshdeep's blunder?

But no, wait. Arshdeep chose bravado over commonsense. In his desire to be the blazing hero, he played an ugly hoick, the bat nowhere near the ball as the white sphere thudded into his pads. Raveendra Wimalasiri’s finger shot skywards, signalling the fall of the last Indian wicket. Upon Siraj’s exhortations, a despondent Arshdeep took a hopeful review. It was to no avail, the three reds formalising the result – a tie, scores level, honours even.

A tie is a tie, and that’s how it should remain. If, after 100 overs in a One-Day International – or 97.5 in this instance – nothing separates the teams, then why not let it remain that way? Why mar it with a Super Over? In ICC tournaments, a tie must be resolved, one way or the other. But not in bilateral competitions, which is why India and Sri Lanka will go into Sunday’s second game with the scoreline 0-0, in what is effectively now a two-match series.

Legendary ties in Test cricket

There have been two ties in the history of Test cricket, with Australia being the common entity in both those epochal matches. In December 1960, West Indian Joe Solomon produced a direct hit from point, with only one stump to aim at, to run Ian Meckiff out and bring the Australian second innings to a close at Gabba in Brisbane. Chasing 233 for victory, Australia were dismissed for 232; after 83 years and 498 matches, Test cricket had its first ‘tie’. The Telegraph, one of England’s respected broadsheets, cheekily attributed the tie to the ‘judgment of Solomon’.

The second, and only other, tied Test transpired at the MA Chidambaram Stadium in Chennai, in September 1986. Set 348 for victory on the final day by Allan Border, India made a brave fist of it. Ravi Shastri’s single to level up the scores in potentially the penultimate over of the Test meant India couldn’t lose the game. When Greg Matthews, the quirky off-spinner, struck Maninder Singh on his pad, the batter turned to make his ground, Shastri put his hand up to caution his partner against looking for a single, and umpire Vikram Raju’s finger of doom shot up instantaneously to declare Maninder out. To this day, Maninder and Shastri insist the former got an edge, Raju is categorical that no bat was involved. Never mind. The scoreboard has Maninder lbw b Matthews 0. Match tied, history revisited.

The most famous tie in ODIs traces back to July 2019, in the final of the World Cup at Lord’s between England and New Zealand. After 100 overs, the two sides were dead even; England replied to New Zealand’s 241 for eight with 241 all out. In an earlier era, New Zealand would have been crowned champions because they had lost fewer wickets, but the playing conditions for the World Cup had pencilled in a Super Over, which too ended with the scores level. New Zealand replied to England’s 15 for no loss with 15 for one. In such an unlikely scenario, the boundary countback was to be the decider, bizarrely. England were deemed champions even though there was no winner or loser in the final. Thankfully, that playing condition has now been junked.

Compared to that heartbreak for the affable Kiwis, Friday’s stalemate in Colombo was plenty more acceptable for both parties. No winner, sure, but no vanquished either. Let the tie remain a tie.