Do you agree with the final result?

[add_sauce]

I think in keeping with strange arbitrary rules which in no reflect the quality of a ODI (like boundaries), in the event of a draw at the next World Cup, the winner should be decided by which teams' average player height is tallest.

 

[thierry henry]

I'm surprised the focus is on the boundary tiebreaker or the fact that Stokes' "6" should have been 5, and not the fact that it should have been a 2.

The fact a batsman can score runs via a deflection off his bat while running is a plainly awful rule which completely changed the course of the match with 2 ****ing balls of the ****ing World Cup ****ing final to go.

It's one of the unluckiest/luckiest things you will ever see in sport. It's actually outside of the bounds of anything I could realistically have imagined happening to crush my hopes and dreams.

I honestly felt sorry for Stokes and for England at the time as it really felt like that moment had inexorably compromised the game. I'm a little surprised looking back on it now, that actually the England fans were cheering madly when that ball went to the boundary. I guess I'm happy for them at least being able to wholeheartedly celebrate the win. I honestly couldn't, and that's probably a flaw in my make up, always wanting to create order and fairness out of the chaos of reality.

By comparison, an arbitrary tiebreaker feels pretty unremarkable. As the higher qualifying team I feel like most possible tiebreakers would favour England anyway. I don't strongly feel that NZ deserved to get the benefit of a tiebreaker and we knew before the start of the super overs anyway.

 

[weldone]

It's a fair point - that is unspeakably bad

Should have been a singing competition in stead of counting boundaries

 

[sledger]

24 hrs later and it still seems England won.

Good.

 

[TheJediBrah]

backlash on social media regarding the results has been insane. "NZ real winners" etc. Seems to be sub-continental fans expressing more than anything.

 

[social]

backlash on social media regarding the results has been insane. "NZ real winners" etc. Seems to be sub-continental fans expressing more than anything.

Yep

Some justification is claiming that Kiwis didn´t lose but none whatsoever that they won

 

[Grasshopper]

I also voted both yes and no. I don't agree with the final result, but accept it. Just feel hollow, tbh.

 

[Athlai]

I also voted both yes and no. I don't agree with the final result, but accept it. Just feel hollow, tbh.

Sorta similar to how I view it. England won the World Cup fairly (because of farcical rules). It isn't England's fault at all that this occurred but it's mind boggling that either more Super Overs to have a conclusive winner or an actual joint winner didn't occur. It's a very stupid and uniquely cricket thing.

 

[social]

Sorta similar to how I view it. England won the World Cup fairly (because of farcical rules). It isn't England's fault at all that this occurred but it's mind boggling that either more Super Overs to have a conclusive winner or an actual joint winner didn't occur. It's a very stupid and uniquely cricket thing.

The fact that they stopped playing without a ¨winner¨ in broad daylight sums cricket up perfectly

 

[cnerd123]

Yea the boundary countback just feels like the administrators never thought it would be possible for a WC final to have a tied game with a tied super over. If they had seriously considered that possibility they might have put more thought into a better alternative. Having said that, wickets lost used to be a tie breaker, and it's possible they wanted to keep its arbitrary nature whilst rewarding the side with the more fan friendly approach to the game (that is, hitting more boundaries).

The super-over itself came out of T20 cricket anyways. It may be suitable for that format, but using 2 overs to figure out the winner after 100 overs have been played doesn't feel right.

England won the head to head result, finished higher in the points table, and came into the WC higher ranked as well. This means my own personal preference for tiebreakers all favour England. So the result is fine for me.

 

[CricAddict]

Yea the boundary countback just feels like the administrators never thought it would be possible for a WC final to have a tied game with a tied super over. If they had seriously considered that possibility they might have put more thought into a better alternative. Having said that, wickets lost used to be a tie breaker, and it's possible they wanted to keep its arbitrary nature whilst rewarding the side with the more fan friendly approach to the game (that is, hitting more boundaries).

The super-over itself came out of T20 cricket anyways. It may be suitable for that format, but using 2 overs to figure out the winner after 100 overs have been played doesn't feel right.

England won the head to head result, finished higher in the points table, and came into the WC higher ranked as well. This means my own personal preference for tiebreakers all favour England. So the result is fine for me.

I don't think so. Super over gives a fair chance to both teams to win the match based on their skill. You can't play another 50 overs if the match ends in a tie. This is a very similar rule to penalty in football or the tie-breaker in tennis and a good one to break the tie.

IMO it should have been just another super over played by 2 different batsmen and bowler and that can go upto maximum of 5 superovers where top 10 batsmen play out and the top 5 bowlers play out in each team. Will also make for exciting viewing. It is improbable that it will be a tie after that but if that improbability happens, then give it to the one who won the group stage or finished higher in the group stage.

 

[Athlai]

If it's a tie after 5 superovers, 10 batsman and 5 bowlers. It should be a bloody tie.

 

[cnerd123]

I do like how the people that were telling Pakistani fans to suck it up about NRR, and Indians fans to cop with the idiosyncrasies of DRS, are now so upset about deflections off the bat and tie breakers. The irony is fantastic.

 

[straw man]

Yea the boundary countback just feels like the administrators never thought it would be possible for a WC final to have a tied game with a tied super over. If they had seriously considered that possibility they might have put more thought into a better alternative. Having said that, wickets lost used to be a tie breaker, and it's possible they wanted to keep its arbitrary nature whilst rewarding the side with the more fan friendly approach to the game (that is, hitting more boundaries).

Yes I can imagine some middling administrators getting together in an airless meeting room somewhere in 2017 and skipping over meeting agenda item 3.1.e because that was never going to happen and didn't matter. Thanks guys.

A better tie-breaker imo would have been leg byes, with those scored off the gut or head counting double. This would reward gutsy and smart cricket like that of Colin De Grandhomme. My team would have won and it would've been no less arbitrary than what actually happened.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I do like how the people that were telling Pakistani fans to suck it up about NRR, and Indians fans to cop with the idiosyncrasies of DRS, are now so upset about deflections off the bat and tie breakers. The irony is fantastic.

Us smug England fans can laugh at everyone.

Being serious though this is a random thing that nobody thought would happen. We have seen NRR decide things in the past and it is a fair system. DRS is fine and better than it used to be. This way of deciding the final was idiotic and cruel, just glad my lot won.

 

[CricAddict]

While the NZers being the good guys have been somewhat fine both in CW world and the world outside of it, my gut feeling is, if the same had happened to India, England or Australia, it would have been very ugly.

 

[cnerd123]

While the NZers being the good guys have been somewhat fine both in CW world and the world outside of it, my gut feeling is, if the same had happened to India, England or Australia, it would have been very ugly.

Oh Virat Kohli would have absolutely lost his ****.

There is a bit of poetry about England winning by the boundary count that I like. England have spent the last 4 years building an ODI unit that will hit more boundaries in an innings than any team in the world, and a bowling/fielding unit that excels at saving boundaries whilst conceding the ones and twos. Even when it comes to the Super Over, they've got a lineup of guys who can go from ball 1, and in Jofra Archer have perhaps the best possible bowler not named Starc or Bumrah to bowl it. Their captain literally set the record for most sixes in an innings in this very WC. In a lot of ways, England winning in this manner vindicates the last 4 years of hard work and planning. When all else is equal, it was their philosophy and approach to ODI cricket that ultimately won them the game. It's the system they all bought into and stuck with, in face of all criticism and derision, that ultimately came through for them.

Keeping this in mind, I quite like the result tbh.

 

[artvandalay]

there is no irony because it's apples and oranges. you cannot equate the ridiculous boundary tie breaker with NRR which has been around for a long time and weighted over a period of 9 games in this tournament making it even more reliable. It is basically crickets version of GD which no will argue is unfair. As far as using lost wickets is concerned you can at least argue that there is some precedent for that in the game where in the event of a stoppage or interruption, the DL par score is affected by how many wickets you lose. It's not perfect of course but you can kind of see where those 2 men were coming from when they created that system. You don't get greater weightage for extra boundaries or 6s you hit if you score the same amount of runs in the same amount of time to state the obvious.

 

[TheBrand]

I just don't think a World Cup Final should be decided by arbitrary things like boundaries or wicket or even dot balls (which would arguably be fairer), it's far too skewed and doesn't take into account who bats first or as someone said earlier why a 100 runs score with less 4's is inferior to 100 runs score with more 4's.

I also think deciding it on who finished higher in the points table or who beat who in the group stage is irrelevant, there is nowhere near as much as at stake in a group stage game as there is in in a final and also can become quite irrelevant and unfair (NZ thrashed Sri Lanka, England lost to Sri Lanka). Contrary to that last sentence, I still think NRR is the best way to decide a tie breaker who goes through to the knockout's as it does reward the team who plays the best over the whole tournament and not one singular game.

If you're going to have Super Over's; I'm all for a penalty shootout system to just keep having them until someone breaks, using a different bowler/set of batsmen every time. It would be the fairest way.

 

[TimAngas]

One thing I haven't heard mentioned yet is that I think that a tiebreaker based on most wickets probably marginally favours the team batting first. This is because in the last overs of a chase the batsmen are more likely to try for suicidal byes even if there is almost no chance of completing the run. For example Santner (stupidly) had no desire to attempt a shot or even a bye off the last ball of NZ's innings but almost certainly would have been run out if he'd tried to run the bye, adding to Englands wicket tally.