Even though they clearly did.
yeah like, i'm all for people saying "oh this was a ridiculous rule, should be changed, really silly" etc etc but "england didn't actually win"... no? that's not how facts work.These sorts of claims are amazing really.
Rules state that if team does X, they win.
England does X.
People deny this happened, despite the very obvious empirical evidence to the contrary.
The rules specify the conditions for winning a match. England met those conditions. This is literally all there is to it.Right, I think its disingenuous to not mention the runs were literally tied after 50 overs and a super over whenever discussing this though. The term victory and defeat just aren't the appropriate words and I don't think that's delusional to say
You know how in the FIFA world cup KO stage they say match tied - team X advanced on penalties. Team England advanced to the trophy via boundary countback, but it was a tie after the final ball was bowled
Not at all. MM and attitude specifically said that England did "not win". This is something your post effectively demonstrates to be literally false.Sledger/Spark and Mr Mister arguing at cross ends here
Does the WC final go down in the record books as England beat New Zealand, or England tied with New Zealand?
Cricinfo has it as 'Match tied, super over tied, England win on boundaries'
Cricbuzz has it as Match Tied (England win super over on boundary count)
The ICC website has it as 'Match Tied (England win the super over)'
It seems the correct answer is Yes, the match was tied and Yes, England beat New Zealand.