Must There Always Be A Winner?

Overnight India fought back after a draw and a loss to beat Australia’s Kookaburras in a three test Hockey series. This meant that the series was tied at one win a piece. Yet there had to be a winner! So a shoot out ensued which Australia won.

The question is why did there have to be a shoot out to decide a test series?

We saw it in America with their soccer/football where they had to have a result as the average American could not believe that you could play for 90 minutes and end up with a draw. Does the fast-food sporting landscape demand that all sporting events must have a winner?

When the competition is a knock out, or is there to determine an overall winner such as the Baseball World Series then it is understandable that we need to have a winner. Yet before anyone jumps up and down we must not forget that Baseball in its rules does not allow for a draw in a game.

In a Cricket series, a drawn series is a result that many find acceptable. Even in rugby, in the unlikely event of a drawn Test there can be a drawn series. So why can’t there be a drawn series in Hockey?

It is very sad in modern day sport that we seem determined to have an outright winner at all times. Why can’t we accept that in a Test series, – not a knock out competition, or a league competition – two teams may be even?

Must There Always Be A Winner?
Tagged on:                         

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *