Do you agree with the final result?

[GIMH]

Maybe it’s my ignorance but I had no idea that was runs until the comms said so

 

[Athlai]

It was honestly the match too. Such a crazy and fortuitous thing.

 

[Bahnz]

It was honestly the match too. Such a crazy and fortuitous thing.

Not necessarily. Maybe if England needed 6 to win off the last ball, Stokes would've hit the knee high full toss into the stand rather than trying to pat it down the ground for 2.England did what they needed to do.

Still, 100% in agreement for rolling sudden-death super overs. Set a 5 minute time limit for innings turnover to stop things from dragging on for too long.

 

[Red]

Seriously, what a f-d up scenario. The result should only be decided by a 50 over contest, not some whimsical method like a) a super over, and when that didn't work b) who hit the most boundaries. How absurd. Why should boundaries scored have ANY bearing on the result?

If a draw isn't acceptable and sharing the cup isn't ok, it either needs to be a) which team won the most matches during the duration of the tournament: if equals it's runs scored, if still equal it's wickets taken, or b) come back tomorrow and have an entire new 50 over match to decide.

The super over is as dumb as a penalty shoot out in soccer. It has no relation to the actual competition at all. FWIW I dont begrudge England their victory, but the way they achieved it was farcical and the ICC need to re-assess this.

 

[Red]

Still, 100% in agreement for rolling sudden-death super overs. Set a 5 minute time limit for innings turnover to stop things from dragging on for too long.

But why let something completely unrelated to 50 over cricket decide the world champ. Makes zero sense.

 

[sledger]

Haha monk it's OK lad, chill, it's done

 

[DriveClub]

But why let something completely unrelated to 50 over cricket decide the world champ. Makes zero sense.

Get off your high horse, super over as a decider is totally fine. No different to penalty shootout

 

[sledger]

Nah monk is right, batting and bowling are inherently un-cricket like

 

[Athlai]

I think it should be decided by total scoring shots.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Wickets lost would make more sense than boundaries IMO. I have to wonder why they would have made it boundaries and guess maybe to encourage people to go for more big hits and make it more exciting? Even though no one will actually do that because it's so unlikely to ever come down to it.

eh no point "disagreeing though", England won by the rules and that's what matters. I'm not going to begrudge NZ fans for whinging though. I mean beaten on a questionable rule, most of England's runs coming from a NZ born player, who should probably be in prison + the 4 runs deflection off the bat. Hard done by would be an understatement

 

[GIMH]

I think it should be decided alphabetically

 

[Bahnz]

Get off your high horse, super over as a decider is totally fine. No different to penalty shootout

I do think the super over favours the team that bats last quite a lot more in ODI’s than it does in T20’s. but even so it still feels a lot fairer than any of the other tie breakers mooted in this thread.

 

[sledger]

I think it should be decided alphabetically

tlc match imo

 

[Athlai]

The only way to settle this is Williamson vs. Morgan at Wrestle Kingdom 14.

 

[sledger]

****ing gaijins ruining it

 

[Athlai]

Whats more puroresu than two warriors showing their fighting spirit at the greatest show of the year?

 

[sledger]

Some guy in a cat costume

 

[stephen]

A better method would have been:

Winner of super over
if tied - Winner of group stage matchup
if no result/tie - Who was ahead in the group stage.

This is much less silly than counting which side was more boundary reliant.

 

[nightprowler10]

> implying that arse/face interaction is undesirable

Yeah it's 2019. Get with the times grandpa.

 

[sledger]

Yeah it's 2019. Get with the times grandpa.

I knew I could count on you gp10