A shared World Cup would've been better.

[I6MTW]

Everyone would've been happy. No questions asked. Both teams legacy intact. Both would've had a WC title. But, no. ICC had to devise some strange rules/methods to award a winner. It's ironic, because in case the match had been rained out completely, the title would've been shared.

[WeStMiDz]

Don't think you can be sharing world cups in all honesty. Sport needs a winner and loser however cruel that may be. 

[Pollack]

England won it fair and square. Please stop whining. Equation was pretty simple. NZ has to score 1 more run to win in the super over since captain would've be informed about scenario of a tie again. NZ failed and they lose. Heartbreaking for NZ but England is deserving winner.

[I6MTW]

7 minutes ago, Pollack said:

England won it fair and square. Please stop whining. Equation was pretty simple. NZ has to score 1 more run to win in the super over since captain would've be informed about scenario of a tie again. NZ failed and they lose. Heartbreaking for NZ but England is deserving winner.

Equation was 2 off 1. A tie would ensure ENG would win because they scored more boundaries. That is not a fair rule. NZ got more wickets. What about that then? And also what about the questionable overthrow? Eng won but not without it's share of luck and favour. Which is why a draw would've been better. We've had drawn matches in ICC tournaments before. Ind and SL had shared the ICC CT title. And if this match was rained out the title would've been shared. Why share it only for rain then? Either continue with super overs until a winner is decided or share the title. Or at least award it to the team which finished higher in the league stage.

[sarcastic]

35 minutes ago, I6MTW said:

Equation was 2 off 1. A tie would ensure ENG would win because they scored more boundaries. That is not a fair rule. NZ got more wickets. What about that then? And also what about the questionable overthrow? Eng won but not without it's share of luck and favour. Which is why a draw would've been better. We've had drawn matches in ICC tournaments before. Ind and SL had shared the ICC CT title. And if this match was rained out the title would've been shared. Why share it only for rain then? Either continue with super overs until a winner is decided or share the title. Or at least award it to the team which finished higher in the league stage.

The rules of more boundaries being considered is set at the beginning of the tournament. Its known to both the teams even before the toss this morning. Is more wickets taken a better rule is another debate but more boundaries rule is already made and known to both teams. Both NZ and Eng should have worked accordingly. So, its not unfair to NZ for applying this rule. 

Edited July 14, 2019 by sarcastic

[DGBOSS]

4 hours ago, Pollack said:

England won it fair and square. Please stop whining. Equation was pretty simple. NZ has to score 1 more run to win in the super over since captain would've be informed about scenario of a tie again. NZ failed and they lose. Heartbreaking for NZ but England is deserving winner.

NZ deserves equal praise as Eng . End of story . 

[Pollack]

5 minutes ago, DGBOSS said:

NZ deserves equal praise as Eng . End of story . 

Of course. Infact they are getting more than equal praise because they were public favourites.Let's be honest not many like the Poms.

[DGBOSS]

4 minutes ago, Shaz1 said:

Your story is ending the wrong way!

Not really . Last I know u guys were whinning about net run rate and how other teams are conspiringg against you .

[Cricketphile]

The Rules were fair as they r clearly stated in the rules of cricket and were set much before the tournament started and both teams knew about it. Thus england won. Fair and square and deservingly so (with luck involved of course).

  U could question if these rules r the best method to determine the winner and naturally, ppl only notice these Situations when they happen like today, as they r rare. However any discussions to amend the rules should not come at the expense of questioning  the team that won, and it’s target games should be future matches. By all means, sure we can all brainstorm better solutions than the boundary deflection by bat rule or the more boundaries during tied game rule. The icc I’m sure will change these rules as they’ve changed numerous rules in the past and they experiment a lot , unlike what most ppl think. The icc has tried so many rules over the years (fielding restrictions, super sub, runner rule, rain rule, Duckworth-Lewis Lewis being modified to stern , bowlout to superover, not run out if bat grounded atleast once, drs rules etc etc), and most of them have been as a response to crucial games like these. That’s how most sporting bodies do it too. Some of fifas key decisions (golden goal introduction to silver goal back to normal extra time, var, holding last leg matches simultaneously , away goal rule, for goals checked after goal difference etc) have also been as a response to crucial games in crucial tournaments 

[wanted_desi]

There should be second super over. 

[SK_IH]

England won within the rules, move on.

[JourneyMan]

You need to decide a winner somehow or the other. If you want to avoid getting into that situation you need to close out the game. Leaving it to the last ball and the last run leaves you vulnerable to such technicalities. 

 

 

[I6MTW]

20 minutes ago, JourneyMan said:

You need to decide a winner somehow or the other. If you want to avoid getting into that situation you need to close out the game. Leaving it to the last ball and the last run leaves you vulnerable to such technicalities. 

 

 

But the reason it went to a super over in the first place was because, of the overthrows in the final over.  Both teams didn't do much wrong in the super over. Scoring 15/16 in 6 balls with regular fielding restrictions is pretty much the maximum you can score in a super over. So the game was with very low margins. Such technicalities are controversial and debatable. Especially cosnidering boundaries as a means of arriving at result. There's more to cricket than boundaries. Eng has more aggressive batsmen and hitters, so obviously they would be higher in the boundary count. The rules should have been keep playing a super over until one arrives at a result. Or award it to the team which finished higher in the group stage(not fair but still a better means of awarding a cup than by margins of boundaries). A shared cup would also have benefited. No one would have complained. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by I6MTW

[Suhaan]

What a farce,yes its all per rules that were pre defined

You score n number of boundaries still end up making same number of runs

Had it been NZ,then too we would have called it