Cricket final

Well done England , Well played NZ .
When I played local cricket I couldn't understand why a tie wasn't decided on wickets lost .
Like today NZ would have won .

 

Whoever won that final deserved it for me . I was expecting a one way final tbh but not sure which way .
Both teams deserved their place in an outstanding final where whoever won were worthy winners and you can’t say that in many finals .
So many standout players on both sides and none disappointed imo.

 

That's the first cricket match I've watched since the Ashes in 2005. Definitely glad I chose to give it a go, brilliant game.

 

You know, it's OK to be from Barnsley and also be successful?

 

You know what, I never knew that! You learn something every day!

Ps I'm not from Barnsley!

 

Have you been drinking today or are you always trying to find offense with everything?

 

Alright guys bringing up a rule after it's been enforced. The rule encourages attacking cricket, which is more exciting to watch and gives fans more entertainment. The rule on boundaries is a good one to have.

 

You're right. but Im not sure. we'd have gone for the outright win risking those last two run outs if that was the case. We'd have just taken the singles.

 

Like world cup matches decided on penalties I assume. Everyone is aware and they have to be accepted. Like it or not. Daft thing is in cricket is the winning the toss can be advantageous. Weather conditions etc. Also duckworth Lewis can be controversial sometimes giving unfair advantage to either side. But gets results so to speak.

 

**ahem**
Cricket doesn’t have rules.

It has laws.

 

Don't know what rule people want to make it so we can't win the World Cup. We finished above them in the league, we beat them in the league and beat them in the final. We can't do much more to prove we deserved it.

 

I'm buzzing we won but to be fair to the Kiwis they scored just as many runs with wickets to spare- surely that is more fair? I'd have been absolutely gutted if we were in their shoes.

 

Rules are rules and it's disrespectful seeing the amount of international cricketers trying to taint the result......

 

Rules are indeed rules and it isn't going to take away how much I've enjoyed the game today, but doesn't mean rules are always right.

 

If wickets in hand mattered then it's doubtful Rashid or Wood would have been run out going for a futile second run. It's unfair to retrospectively judge the game by new criteria, given that the participants would likely have acted differently. I doubt that the Indian commentators above would've been keen for it to have been a tie were it their team involved.

Personally I think that the team batting second in a super over should always have to score more than those batting first, given that having a target is a big advantage.

 

LAWS NOT RULES. FFS.

Anyhow it seems the comedically Indian run ICC decided new laws, as just as they increased the number of games in the group format following India being knocked out in a previous WC. I see now Dohni crying they have extra games in the knockout section too. They should have just played on until India won.

 

I'd have rather won it outright.

 

Just reading that actually the umpires made a mistake and England should have only been awarded 5 runs, not 6 as at the moment the ball was thrown in the two batsmen had not crossed thus making the second run incomplete. Additionally, as they hadn't crossed at that point Stokes should have gone back to the other end leaving Rashid to face the 5th ball with 3 to win. It's pathetic that the ICC can spend all this time and money on replays for umpire judgement calls and change the laws to make the game more exciting, but it can't use the same replay to sort out decisions of actual fact.