Do you agree with the final result?

[Burgey]

It seems odd to decide the tournament in the manner they did. If you have a super over to decide it, then you keep going with super overs until someone wins it, surely. Otherwise just decide it with the arbitrary metric as soon as the game ends.

If two blokes are tied in the British Open this week, they won't go back and check who hit a birdie on the 16th, they'll go back and have a play off, where you're actually playing the game to decide the tourney.

 

[Burgey]

As for the outcome of the game itself, it's obvious the Kiwis can rightfully lay claim to being the true world champions. Didn't have a 50:50 call go their way all game, got the rough end of the umpiring pineapple and were undone by a violent thug who should have been watching from the common room in stir.

Then the game finishes in a tie after the umpires stuff up the number of overthrows to award. I mean, they check for a front foot no ball on a dismissal, but don't have the wherewithal to see if the batsmen satisfied the criteria for the amount of runs they awarded them at the most crucial juncture of the whole four year cycle of international ODI cricket? Woeful officiating. Likewise Taylor's dismissal. Terrible. There's no cop out in saying Guptill burned the review - the umpire's job is to get it right and Taylor's was missing by ****ing miles. Meanwhile, Dummy-spitter Roy, who should have been suspended after his outburst in the semi final, is out lbw first rock and not given, then goes on to make 20 odd in a tied game.

And England still couldn't beat them.

Well done to both teams anyway, on what is the best ODI I've ever seen, surpassing even the 1999 Aus-SA semi final. A great final which will never be topped. Fantastic tourney and well done to England on the win and a good job hosting too.

As a side note, can someone tell me what the song (if you can call it that) the soap dodgers all sing when a wicket falls or a boundary is hit? There's no words to it, it's just like an upbeat sort of riff.

 

[TheBrand]

I think I know the song you mean, it's got lots of do do do do's in it.

However at the few games I went to we got this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfqGecFhaTc

 

[Burgey]

Yeah, the one you're referring to in your first sentence is the one I meant, though the second one is punishing too.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It seems odd to decide the tournament in the manner they did. If you have a super over to decide it, then you keep going with super overs until someone wins it, surely. Otherwise just decide it with the arbitrary metric as soon as the game ends.

If two blokes are tied in the British Open this week, they won't go back and check who hit a birdie on the 16th, they'll go back and have a play off, where you're actually playing the game to decide the tourney.

I mean, using boundaries to win is after all something you'd expect from the colonial masters

 

[Burgey]

I think to any metric other than super overs to decide it nowadays is just wrong. It should literally be cricket's penalty shoot out. Ok, it isn't ideal to base a result on one over, but at least you're actually in a contest to break the tie, rather than arbitrarily using one aspect of the game to decide a WC final.

 

[trundler]

Still a tie and a shared trophy to me.

 

[duffer]

Should've played the game again on the reserve day. Would've been great.

 

[mr_mister]

It seems there's universal agreement from nearly every non english fan on this site that this was indeed a tie. Funny that.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think to any metric other than super overs to decide it nowadays is just wrong. It should literally be cricket's penalty shoot out. Ok, it isn't ideal to base a result on one over, but at least you're actually in a contest to break the tie, rather than arbitrarily using one aspect of the game to decide a WC final.

Where they finished in the league stages IMO. Should reward a good consistent tournament.

 

[cnerd123]

It seems there's universal agreement from nearly every non english fan on this site that this was indeed a tie. Funny that.

I'm firmly in the 'those were the rules and England won' camp.

Doesn't matter how bizarre the rules are or if you disagree with them. Both sides knew the rules going in, it was a fair game, the two teams tied the match and the superover, and England won the World Cup on boundary count. Fair and square. No asterix next to this in my book.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah but you are an England fan.

 

[Burgey]

Where they finished in the league stages IMO. Should reward a good consistent tournament.

But there's no need for it, because now there's a relatively quick tie breaker. It might go to a second or third super over, but that's no different to a golf play off running five holes, a tiebreaker in tennis going 15-13 or a penalty shootout finishing 11-9.

Only the ICC could have a method of resolving a tie which is a proper subset of the skills involved in the actual sport, and decide to use it in a way which still leads to a tied result. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but tbh I'm not.

 

[mr_mister]

I'm firmly in the 'those were the rules and England won' camp.

Doesn't matter how bizarre the rules are or if you disagree with them. Both sides knew the rules going in, it was a fair game, the two teams tied the match and the superover, and England won the World Cup on boundary count. Fair and square. No asterix next to this in my book.

Colonial puppet. Please sir may I have another!



I'm kidding

 

[Shri]

it's got lots of do do do do's in it

baby shark?

 

[mr_mister]

I know the song, I remember it being on a Kmart ad or something similar for years

 

[GIMH]

It seems there's universal agreement from nearly every non english fan on this site that this was indeed a tie. Funny that.

It was a tie. And then we won on the tiebreaker.

Like in footy, if you win on pens. It was a draw, but then one side still won and the other still lost.

It's just semantics though really isn't it?

 

[Burgey]

Nah, they won off the back of woeful umpiring and a massively lucky break which the umpires also ****ed up.

Certainly not their fault they were in front on the metric which decided it, but you're kidding yourself if either side was thinking that way as the actual game progressed. If it had been decided on wickets lost, you'd be rightfully spewing when another super over could have decided it.

As with Murali's bowling records, England's WC win will always have an asterisk next to it to denote it was questionably obtained.

On the bright side, Kerry Packer's vision of a World XI dominating one day cricket has finally come to pass. So there's that.

 

[GIMH]

Hmm, could have sworn I saw you berate your compatriots for that sort of comment (the last line). Almost as though bitterness is getting to you :

 

[Burgey]

Can't be bitter when you get banged up in a semi final like Australia did. Got outplayed. Unlike NZ, who were genuinely robbed in the final. Not by anything nefarious England did (aside from Stokes, who even when he tries to be decent just can't quite manage it becasue of his very essence) but just by happenstance. I can't remember a side copping so many set backs and getting so close to a win. It was an immense performance. But I sort of knew once Djokovic beat Federer that it was going to be a night where the forces of darkness had a sporting win.