Hats off to the finalist (WC19)

[zen]

What a game! Both are winners in my book

[Cricketics]

Sad to see NZ guys crying. This shows this is what it means to lose a world cup final twice. Hats off to all the players. What a game

[zen]

5 minutes ago, Cricketics said:

Sad to see NZ guys crying. This shows this is what it means to lose a world cup final twice. Hats off to all the players. What a game

I would have given it to both teams. Easily, the two best teams in the WC esp. when it comes to delivering under pressure 

[Vijy]

11 minutes ago, zen said:

What a game! Both are winners in my book

they should have just awarded co-winners. this super over or counting 4s (or even wickets), etc are all BS. Both teams had chances to win and came very close.

[beetle]

Feels like someone snatched the cup from kiwis and handed it to England.

[zen]

1 hour ago, beetle said:

Feels like someone snatched the cup from kiwis and handed it to England.

NZ should have taken its chances though 

 

a) could have tried to get to 260

b) could have caught Stokes 

c) could have got 5 of 3 in the super-over 

[WC2011INDIA]

I just hope NZ doesn't get mentally affected by this. They should continue overperforming in WCs and hopefully win it all someday.  

[Vijy]

4 minutes ago, zen said:

NZ should have taken its chances though 

 

a) could have tried to get to 260

b) could have caught Stokes 

c) could have got 5 of 3 in the super-over 

well, to be fair, eng could have: (a) imported Kane, (b) imported boult (for tourney), (c) imported lockie.

[beetle]

5 minutes ago, zen said:

NZ should have taken its chances though 

 

a) could have tried to get to 260

b) could have caught Stokes 

c) could have got 5 of 3 in the super-over 

They made equal runs twice....

 

[zen]

6 minutes ago, beetle said:

They made equal runs twice....

 

But not good enough to win. Like SA failed to advance in 99 after the game ended in a tie .... Equation was clear that they could not afford to tie in super over (could have worked against Eng too)

 

PS but as I said, I would have given it to both the teams (unless there were more super overs)

Edited July 14, 2019 by zen

[beetle]

9 minutes ago, zen said:

But not good enough to win. Like SA failed to advance in 99 after the game ended in a tie .... Equation was clear that they could not afford to tie in super over (could have worked against Eng too)

 

PS but as I said, I would have given it to both the teams (unless there were more super overs)

A throw hitting the bat was the difference.

[-Robin-]

10 minutes ago, zen said:

But not good enough to win. Like SA failed to advance in 99 after the game ended in a tie .... Equation was clear that they could not afford to tie in super over (could have worked against Eng too)

 

PS but as I said, I would have given it to both the teams (unless there were more super overs)

NZ did not got 4 runs in donation. Otherwise even super over was not required.

[zen]

17 minutes ago, beetle said:

A throw hitting the bat was the difference.

That is what happens on the field! In super over, umpire have first ball wide when it was not 

[zen]

In the end, “luck” favoured the team that had been planning for this over the last 4 yrs and gave its everything in its last 4 games. Also chasing 240 odd in these conditions vs NZ’s bowling and fielding is commendable. NZ too gave its everything in the game. It was a high intensity game where both sides rose to the occasion. Produced game of the tournament!

 

In my book, both are winners! 

Edited July 14, 2019 by zen

[diga]

Very impressive from NZ... Imagine if Ben Stokes had not immigrated to Eng from NZ

[Vijy]

34 minutes ago, diga said:

Very impressive from NZ... Imagine if Ben Stokes had not immigrated to Eng from NZ

or if grandhomme and Roy had not migrated from SA, Archer from WI, Morgan from Ire, and Root from Mars.

[zen]

20 hours ago, -Robin- said:

NZ did not got 4 runs in donation. Otherwise even super over was not required.

That is not how the game works. The last ball was a full toss which Stokes could have hit for a 6. The only reason he played it along the ground was that it was not worth the risk of getting out. If that risk was required, the ball could have gone for a 6. From a different perspective, the 4 overthrows made Stokes take no risk, which in turn helped NZ to tie 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by zen