• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Final - England v New Zealand

Who will win the match?


  • Total voters
    43

Dissector

International Debutant
If there is a tie I think they should just give the win to the team that loses the toss.

(As an aside one of the most underrated problems in cricket is the massive impact of the toss which doesn't have any parallel in any other sport that I know of)
 

Bahnz

Hall of Fame Member
I don't hate the idea of just playing more Super Overs until the stadium administration and/or local government tells you to gagf, but failing that when it's a tie after a Super Over I think it should be treated the same way a washout is. I think that would mean England would be declared winners -- finished higher in the round robin -- but they may actually share the trophy in that situation based on what mr_mister said (which is lame, but if so lets just change that too :p ).

Wickets lost is at the very least also incredibly stupid, possibly even just as stupid as the boundaries rule. I don't want to see it changed (back) to that.
Yeah England being awarded the game on the basis of finishing above NZ in the group stage, or on the basis that they had better NRR or that they won the group match would all be sensible ways to split a tie. So I can live with the result. But ****ing boundaries? Remember back in the 2014 FIFA world cup when the match finished a draw and they decided who won based on who had the most shots on goal? Of course you ****ing don’t!
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
.

However moaning about that now just takes away from the moment. Which is my point. Like, at least wait a day right?
Haha yeah I do totally agree with this. I didn't log on to get into discussions about this ****. The hive mind of CW decided it must be so though.
It does not. England were the best team throughout the tournanent, it's not like anyone begrudges them the win.

But if you can't talk about tweaking an imperfect rule right after it affects the biggest game of cricket possible then you'd probably never do it.
 

OverratedSanity

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah England being awarded the game on the basis of finishing above NZ in the group stage, or on the basis that they had better NRR or that they won the group match would all be sensible ways to split a tie. So I can live with the result. But ****ing boundaries? Remember back in the 2014 FIFA world cup when the match finished a draw and they decided who won based on who had the most shots on goal? Of course you ****ing don’t!
Japan qualified over Senegal in the recent world cup on fewer yellow cards iirc. It was completely ridiculous.
 

RossTaylorsBox

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
A final being decided by some random technicality which will be debated about for decades is the most cricket thing ever, which is why it owns.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You know what's the worst part? Not the World Cup being awarded over something so arbitrary but the fact that this has reawakened Sledger to stir the pot.
 

sledger

Spanish_Vicente
You know what's the worst part? Not the World Cup being awarded over something so arbitrary but the fact that this has reawakened Sledger to stir the pot.
It is simply the optimum time to bestow my prodigious wit on people who can give it the attention it doubtless deserves.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
But if you can't talk about tweaking an imperfect rule right after it affects the biggest game of cricket possible then you'd probably never do it.
I agree that we should run with the momentum of the emotional outage, as I said in the other post. If people weren't talking about it on CW I'd have happily waited a day or two though. Middle ground ftw.
 

nightprowler10

Global Moderator
Wickets should be determined the world cup winner
While it rings as a better strategy to me, it is still arbitrary. After all, England threw Adil's wicket away intentionally to give Stokes the strike. Similarly, teams intentionally give away boundaries by having an aggressive field because they are more worried about stopping the single or taking a wicket. We need to be either happy with a shared trophy or accept any arbitrary rule used to decide a winner, because let's face it, all of those types of rules are arbitrary, including the super over.
 

91Jmay

International Coach
England 100% got luckier in the final sans the toss (sounds like we'd have bowled anyway). The Taylor dismissal, the Roy non-LBW & the Stokes overthrows. Wasn't a wide to start Archer's over but NZ can feel so aggrieved, I'd be spewing if I was a Kiwi.
 

Top