So dad, you lost

No we drew.
Tele says you lost.
Well, we scored the same amount of runs as them, we had a playoff thing and scored the same amount of runs in that too, but someone somewhere at some time was asked to draw up some rules on something that nobody believed would ever happen and so they wrote any old crap down.
So you lost.
NO!

Amazing TV. Fantastic entertainment. But it was a draw.

 

I take the point but you do have to decide the winner of a tournament somehow, and boundaries are at least a perceived marker of dominance in the one day game. Can also see the argument about wickets but in a time limited format they don't particularly have any more relevance. Wickets in hand don't get you anymore runs when 50 overs are up.

I would also add that New Zealand knew in advance of the super over that they needed to beat England's score to win. I guess in the same way that a team knows they need to score more on away goals if they draw.

That all said New Zealand were fantastic today and didn't get the rub of the green. Kane Williamson, who is an honorary Yorkshireman, should be a shoe in for overseas Sports Personality of the Year. But England have found a way to win today and I'm still as a high as a kite. What a game, what a day.

 

No different to away goal rules, really.

 

If I were a kiwi I'd feel a bit aggrieved buy the rules stated we ve won! Yay, our first cricket world cup.

 

Since when did you get away goals in a one leg final?

 

Good job we didn't have that rule in 66 or Germany would have won the world cup.

 

Another super over?

People on here have attempted to argue that it's no different to away goals, which it really isn't. You don't have away goals in the world cup final for a number of very obvious reasons.

If you were trying to make it analogous with football it would be like the scores being level after the 5 initial penalties but instead of playing on through sudden death until one team had scored more than the other after the same number of penalties the victor was decided on something entirely arbitrary like the number of goals scored from open play or the number of free kicks conceded.

Federer and Djokovic reached 12 games all in the final set so it went to a tie break. They didn't stop and hand the tournament to the player who'd won the most points with volleys or back hands.

The winner of the tennis won more sets than their opponent. The winner of the football World Cup has always and will always have scored more goals than their opponent. The winner of the cricket World Cup did not score more runs than their opponent and as a cricket match is decided by who scores the most runs, they didnt beat them, it was a draw. It was fantastic entertainment but they really should have played until there was a winner, but they didn't.

 

In F1, if two drivers are tied at the end of the season do they have an extra Grand Prix, or work back on who won most races? Or do they call it a draw?

At some point they must say enough is enough, and that is obviously after the super over in cricket. The rules were in place before the match started so not like they made it up as the game was happening.

If we'd have finished on the same points as Luton, would we have been joint champions, or would you have accepted goal difference was the separating factor? Because you knew in the event of a tie that is what it can down to?

 

Did,nt NZ lose the game by conceding a wicket in the super over rather than losing by scoring less boundaries

 

Would N Z felt sorry for us? Dout it very much, shame it wasn't against the Aussies.

 

I'd be surprised if that was true. Mostly because they didn't concede a wicket in the superover.

 

if NZ had have won, it would have been equivalent to when Greece won the Euros. England were the best team in the competition and worthy winners.

 

Erm yeah they did. Guptill was run out on the last ball. They finished 15-1.

 

Lost by having fewer boundaries not wickets.

 

Correct.

 

Nope.... why would people be talking about this rule if that didn't even come into play?!

BBC:

 

Hit a nerve there mate?

 

Haha no, just not sure why you're saying something is correct when it clearly isn't?