World Cup Final New Zealand v England Sunday July 14 @ Lords

Who will win?


  • Total voters
    31
  • Poll closed .
Nov 15, 2013
12,799
15,311
Here
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Yes
Very interesting with Taufel confirming that the umpires should have awarded 5 runs instead of 6... obviously the one run could have made all the difference, but imagine if Erasmus and Dharmasena had made the right call and then (correctly) told Stokes that he had to go down to the non-strikers end.

England would have been up in arms, and its an interesting debate as to whether they would have preferred to take the 5 and have Rashid on strike, or just settle for the 2 (agreeing that the ball was dead after hitting Stokes) and allow Stokes to have the strike? And would they have even been allowed to do that (decline the overthrow boundary)?

So disappointing that the umpires let us down there at that crucial juncture. Not that I had any idea about that rule, but you'd expect them to seeing as Taufel is so across it. From a cricket nerd point of view I am happy to now know exactly how it works in terms of overthrows and the definition of a wilful act by the fielder distinguishing between the initial runs and the overthrown runs. Previously I'd often wondered how an umpire would rule on someone "deliberately" (in the AFL sense) tapping the ball over the boundary to turn an all-run 5 into a 4.
In this scenario . Rashid on strike needing 4 runs off 2 balls . Rashid is underated and has a very good strike rate . He would have had a good heave , can hit a 6 or boundary would have at least made a single leaving Stokes to face last Ball which would have been a boundary .
 

Doodlesweaver

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 17, 2010
13,924
6,005
London
AFL Club
Fremantle
Must admit I always worked off the assumption CricInfo followed the ICC.

Does the ICC keep a list of their official records online?

I can't find the playing conditions for the world cup. Does it say most boundaries "shall be the winner of the match" or "shall be the winner of the trophy/tournament/cup"?

Cricinfo also says that England won the superover which they didn't, so I can't see how they can be reflecting the official line.
 
May 29, 2013
3,760
9,022
AFL Club
St Kilda
Very interesting with Taufel confirming that the umpires should have awarded 5 runs instead of 6... obviously the one run could have made all the difference, but imagine if Erasmus and Dharmasena had made the right call and then (correctly) told Stokes that he had to go down to the non-strikers end.

England would have been up in arms, and its an interesting debate as to whether they would have preferred to take the 5 and have Rashid on strike, or just settle for the 2 (agreeing that the ball was dead after hitting Stokes) and allow Stokes to have the strike? And would they have even been allowed to do that (decline the overthrow boundary)?

So disappointing that the umpires let us down there at that crucial juncture. Not that I had any idea about that rule, but you'd expect them to seeing as Taufel is so across it. From a cricket nerd point of view I am happy to now know exactly how it works in terms of overthrows and the definition of a wilful act by the fielder distinguishing between the initial runs and the overthrown runs. Previously I'd often wondered how an umpire would rule on someone "deliberately" (in the AFL sense) tapping the ball over the boundary to turn an all-run 5 into a 4.

It's not interesting ..... it's damning

On other note - As per official policy, no comments are made on umpiring decisions,” an ICC spokesperson

Typical gutless ICC response
 

Moosegun

Draftee
Jul 15, 2019
5
3
AFL Club
Sydney
Whilst I understand that many of you wanted England to lose, no complaints there, if you had made the final I would have been rooting for the Ziwis, you seemed to have missed a pretty important factor.

If wickets had been the first deciding factor in the case of a draw (not Super Over or boundaries) it actually would have been much easier for England to win at the death.

England needed 2 runs to tie off the last two balls, when both sides were 8 down. If wickets were the deciding factor then Rashid would not have sacrificed his wicket going for the second run. England would have simply take a single, leaving Rashid to get 1 run from the final ball to tie the game. As wickets would have been tied it would have had to go to some other method such as boundries, head to head, league position, or league run rate, all of which would have seen England win.

My point is that both teams knew how the game would be decided in the case of a draw, I very much doubt England would have thrown away their last two wickets to impossible run outs if it meant them losing in the case of a tie. As it was, wickets didnt count for anything, thus it wasnt an issue.

Good luck in the ashes
 
Jul 12, 2008
13,988
8,899
Vic
AFL Club
Carlton
Well that was certainly the most farcical end to a world cup final I've ever seen. The match itself was a cliffhanger but the way it got decided made it a bit of a farce for me.

2007 might disagree

181777.png
 

mouncey2franklin

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 16, 2018
8,644
15,438
AFL Club
North Melbourne
This just gets worse and worse.

What a farce. This is worse than AFL-level farce, this is something else altogether.

P.S. The footage of Maxwell with his Lancashire teammates when the game was decided is sensational. He knew.
 
Jul 12, 2008
13,988
8,899
Vic
AFL Club
Carlton
i feel relieved that the 434 run chase the aussies couldn't defend vs SA will now be forgotten in discussions as one of the greatest ODI's ever.

wonder if we'll see some juicier 50 over pitches around the world now.

would love to see something like this again

 

jc37

All Australian
Jan 4, 2007
712
1,677
London
AFL Club
Collingwood
I genuinely think England should make the offer to share the trophy which is the only the fair result.
England win by a count back of 4's (which is right under the rules) but NZ win on a countback of runs (if applying the correct rules). You check 4's and 6's and should do the same with this. Great game no side deserves to lose. listening to England talk about how they won a game in which they lost more wickets and technically make less runs and at best tied is a joke. The lack of humility in their win is astounding. I would love NZ to protest as I think they would and deserve to win.
 

Moosegun

Draftee
Jul 15, 2019
5
3
AFL Club
Sydney
I genuinely think England should make the offer to share the trophy which is the only the fair result.
England win by a count back of 4's (which is right under the rules) but NZ win on a countback of runs (if applying the correct rules). You check 4's and 6's and should do the same with this. Great game no side deserves to lose. listening to England talk about how they won a game in which they lost more wickets and technically make less runs and at best tied is a joke. The lack of humility in their win is astounding. I would love NZ to protest as I think they would and deserve to win.
But England would not have lost their last two wickets if wickets had been part of the equation. They would have just had to tie the game as they were winning on all other methods that could have been used. Just like the Aussies did in 1999 vrs SA, you tied the game but the chosen method to separate teams in the case of the tie saw you go through. Very much doubt you were screaming for a protest back then. Short memories.
 

Echoes

Drain the swamp.
May 2, 2019
1,581
1,545
AFL Club
St Kilda
i feel relieved that the 434 run chase the aussies couldn't defend vs SA will now be forgotten in discussions as one of the greatest ODI's ever.

wonder if we'll see some juicier 50 over pitches around the world now.

would love to see something like this again



Never see the likes of the WACA again I’m afraid.
 

eltrain

Club Legend
Dec 22, 2013
1,134
1,415
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
MVFC, Everton, Red Sox, Bruins
I’ve been keeping an eye on the England Cricket social media channels today. Much like the team itself there doesn’t seem to be much of an English presence in their Facebook comments. It seems like most comments are either from subcontinent fans offering congratulations or from Aussies trying to wind them up about not deserving the win. Great stuff lol
 

CazC30

Far from the madding crowd.
Jan 12, 2017
8,820
7,196
Essex.
AFL Club
West Coast
The countback has happened a few times in franchise cricket, dating back to 2010. Jimmy Neesham's been on the winning side in one of them.

The point of the super over is to decide the winner, and theoretically tied super overs could go on forever so you have to have some point at which they stop and something else decides it.

Personally, I'd say that a tied super over should be decided based on something that happens in the super over, not throughout the full match. If it's wickets, boundaries, whatever, not particularly fussed, but I prefer that the super over effectively starts at nil-all.
I have to disagree with wickets as many teams will lose wickets to put a certain player on strike and use the end of over free hit; in both innings of a one day match there are totally different batting strategies... Both teams would have known boundaries would have counted in a tied game as this is to promote attacking cricket. Everyone loves a smashed four and a six but can't forebode mostly of pushing the ball for ones and twos although I do like this strategy to tick over the score. Both teams knew the rules... Kudos to England.
 

Echoes

Drain the swamp.
May 2, 2019
1,581
1,545
AFL Club
St Kilda
If the poms win the Ashes the melts on here are going to be spectacular

In fairness, the English have been trolling the * out of us and applying a generalised label to Australian’s as cheats, dirty convict scum etc since sandpaper gate.

Not going to apologise for swinging back at this rennasaince of England as colonial master bullshit for a second.
 
Sep 11, 2018
40,646
40,969
Victoria
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Storm|V/OzCricket|NBA-P|NHL-P|V8|F1
I have to disagree with wickets as many teams will lose wickets to put a certain player on strike and use the end of over free hit; in both innings of a one day match there are totally different batting strategies... Both teams would have known boundaries would have counted in a tied game as this is to promote attacking cricket. Everyone loves a smashed four and a six but can't forebode mostly of pushing the ball for ones and twos although I do like this strategy to tick over the score. Both teams knew the rules... Kudos to England.
Can the poms honestly say they would have aimed for a tie instead of winning in the case of "knowing a tied game plus a tied super over would go back to a countback that they knew they would be ahead in" and "modify our behaviour if the situation was related to wickets rather than boundaries"... surely a "win" is a better outcome in the first place? and the double-tie is a fairly highly unlikely event to occur in the first place so I doubt it would have even been thought of at all.

It's just a "we have a different requirement in the super over due to specifics we did not consider at the time" situation, imho.

It also highlights how farcical it is to think the teams thought of this stuff before the initial tie occurred during the setting of the total or the run-chase. Picking boundaries is just ridiculous in any way you shape it and the idea to "promote attacking cricket" is absolutely beyond the pale of any scrutiny because two 6's is worse than three 4's (at it's simplest) so doesn't promote ultimate attacking, either. If you're going ot choose something arbitrarily like they did for this rule, then wickets lost makes the most sense, but obviously has the only downside of potentially having a lower likelihood of actually splitting the tie.

The only thing that feels fair to me is to continue to "play cricket" until a winner is actually decided. Super over repeat until a winner is found seems the only "reasonable" outcome.
 

Moosegun

Draftee
Jul 15, 2019
5
3
AFL Club
Sydney
I completely believe that England wouldnt have thrown away their last two wickets just trying to get Stokes on strike if wickets were the main deciding factor in the case of a draw. Of course they wouldnt. Just like you Aussies knew that if you tied with SA in 1999 then you would win the match and progress to the final.

The main thing is that neither you, me or anyone else knows. It is fine to say that wickets is a better way of deciding but to then act like that should mean NZ should have won is totally neglecting any effect that could have had on the game at the death.
 
Last edited:

Sammo360

Club Legend
Aug 15, 2009
1,115
503
AFL Club
Sydney
Yet another quirk of this great game. Ball hits the batsmen running and your overthrows will either be 4 or 0 (but only due to convention - not the actual rules). :think::think:

Convention goes out the window if it was to win the World Cup. Batsmen have even run on a deflection to bring up their ton.
 

Moosegun

Draftee
Jul 15, 2019
5
3
AFL Club
Sydney
The argument that NZ would have won if Eng only received 5 not 6 for the deflection doesnt hold water either, because it too would have effected the rest of the game. Stokes might not have tried to bunt the final ball for a certain single if he needed a minimum of two, he might have leathered the leg side full toss into the stands, equally he might have got out, you dont know. The important thing is that all these thing in hindsight would have actually effected the game itself.
 

kiwi4life

Rookie
Mar 27, 2018
42
37
AFL Club
Sydney
This really sucks, 2015 was heartbreaking and took a long time to get over but this is just as painful in a whole different way. We had it, our one chance, literally touching the trophy, to have it slip it away like that I don't know what to say! I don't believe we'll will ever get another chance like that again at least not in my lifetime, the odds of making another WC final, let alone actually winning the ******* thing are just far too slim. To know you'll never see your team win the big prize, well that is a bitter pill to swallow! I mean what is even the point now? Watch us lose every WC for the next 40 years till I die? I guess sometimes in life it's just not meant to be.
 
Back