Do you agree with the final result?

[RossTaylorsBox]

Should be whoever beat Sri Lanka in pool play.

 

[rythy]

Yes, the rule was well known.

 

[Athlai]

Each team should get 2 innings IMO and maybe up to 5 days per game.

 

[sledger]

Yes, the rule was well known.

Well known to you perhaps. Think about others for once

 

[cpr]

Wickets lost would make more sense than boundaries IMO.

Well, no. The aim of the game is to score the most runs, which is most effectively done by scoring boundaries, not to lose least wickets. Would make a pretty boring game otherwise

 

[Athlai]

Well, no. The aim of the game is to score the most runs, which is most effectively done by scoring boundaries, not to lose least wickets. Would make a pretty boring game otherwise

The bolded is entirely arbitrary. Both teams scored the same amount of runs. England did not play "better" because they hit more boundaries. They played differently.

It should absolutely not be how games are decided. I'm fine with there being some kind of arbitrary tiebreaker and in this instance we had this as the rule, probably mostly on the assumption it'd never come up. But now that it has, they have to tweak it to something else.

Preferably another over and if time constraints mean no further play is possible than fall back to result of previous game, highest on tournament points, highest NRR for tournament.

 

[cpr]

Wasn't actually meaning in this game in particular, I mean in cricket in general. Scoring 4 or 6 off a ball is more effective than one or two, in the basest sense of the word 'effective'. Obviously it helps if you don't **** up on the other balls too much.

I'm just not getting why people think not losing wickets in a game with a set amount of overs to score the most is a good thing, and why it should be a deciding factor over anything to do with scoring runs. Taking it back to todays game for example, both England and NZ are 8 down with 2 balls of Englands innings left, imagine if England didn't try for the 2nd run on either of those balls because preserving those wickets was more important than actually trying to win the game. I don't quite get why in a game where scoring more than an opponent should come down to who can be defensive and preserve wickets over trying for an extra run.

Scoring a win on boundaries is a bit silly, but at least they are looking on the right side of the scorecard.

 

[Athlai]

It's more effective, but as a measure of teams impact on a "tied" score. More boundaries would mean less scoring shots. The wickets thing is also erroneous and I agree with you there.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Wasn't actually meaning in this game in particular, I mean in cricket in general. Scoring 4 or 6 off a ball is more effective than one or two, in the basest sense of the word 'effective'. Obviously it helps if you don't **** up on the other balls too much.

Count back the boundaries for each team in the history of cricket.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The losing fewer wickets rule was always a nonsense when it used to apply in domestic one day cricket. More often than not the team batting first lost more wickets by tossing wickets away in pursuit of quick runs at the end of the innings.

 

[cpr]

Count back the boundaries for each team in the history of cricket.

Well that'd be an absolutely pointless endeavour. What I was saying was in the context of a shot, scoring 4 or 6 is a more effective way of enhancing the score than scoring 1,2 or 3.

Sure you can win a game scoring less boundaries, and todays final was a great exhibit in the importance of keeping the scoreboard turning. But if you are looking at Plan C tiebreakers for a game, something related to scoring runs is more sensible than something related to preserving wickets.

 

[TestMatch]

The "boundaries rule" is entirely stupid, arbitrary and penalizes teams like NZ whose style of play relies less on slogging.

If the 50 over game results in a draw, give the trophy to both teams, or decide the winner based on who won more games throughout the tournament. If you must have Super Overs, keep doing Super Overs until one team wins.

For the "best ODI team in the world", England looked a mess throughout this final. NZ looked on top throughout the England innings, managed to contain Stokes and Butler reasonably well, and seemed to lose only because of seriously wacky, cosmically freakish weirdness.

 

[TheJediBrah]

England did not play "better" because they hit more boundaries.

Actually they did, according to the rules

 

[Test_Fan_Only]

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.

I agree with every said in this post.

 

[mr_mister]

I'd really would have liked infinite super overs. Let's be honest we could have got a result eventually doing that

ATM this just feels like a tie

 

[Bahnz]

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?

Super overs were brought in with T20, and the boundary tie-splitter kinda makes sense in that context: a pointless commercial product that exists solely to draw in casuals who like watching epic 6s. But it makes no sense in the context of an ODI or a serious competition like the World Cup. My guess, is it was 4:55 pm on a Friday afternoon at the ICC headquarters, and somebody couldn't be bothered putting in any thought into a sensible tie-breaking system and so just decided to hit copy & paste from the IPL rule book.

Also with regard to the time issues of multi super-overs, you could save time by having the team that bats second roll straight on through to their second super over. So just have Neesham front up to Woakes straight away, with KW coming out to replace Guptill. Perfec

 

[Fuller Pilch]

If super over is tied I'd like to go to bowl off. It is too hard to have another super over

 

[Red]

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

It's a complete and utter farce to end a six week competition like this.

 

[DravidFan]

This was the lamest ending to a WC. I can't believe they couldn't come up with a better way to resolve ties in the premier cricket tournament.

 

[Red]

Wasn't actually meaning in this game in particular, I mean in cricket in general. Scoring 4 or 6 off a ball is more effective than one or two, in the basest sense of the word 'effective'. Obviously it helps if you don't **** up on the other balls too much.

I'm just not getting why people think not losing wickets in a game with a set amount of overs to score the most is a good thing, and why it should be a deciding factor over anything to do with scoring runs. Taking it back to todays game for example, both England and NZ are 8 down with 2 balls of Englands innings left, imagine if England didn't try for the 2nd run on either of those balls because preserving those wickets was more important than actually trying to win the game. I don't quite get why in a game where scoring more than an opponent should come down to who can be defensive and preserve wickets over trying for an extra run.

Scoring a win on boundaries is a bit silly, but at least they are looking on the right side of the scorecard.

Why not cumulative runs over a whole tournament? Isolating the deciding factor to boundaries hit in one game is as nonsensical as the super over. What if it'd rained half way thru the 1st innings and scoring became difficult for 20 overs for one team, before drying again. But the 1st team still managed the same score, just via different method.

God, this has been the most farcical thing I've ever seen in cricket.