So dad, you lost

I'm not sure looking for equally unsatisfactory rules on how a contest is won makes this a better rule

 

I'd favour each team selecting a bowler to chuck a pie to one of their own batsmen and whoever ***** it the furthest wins

 

probably but how long do you go on?
only 7 super overs involving test playing countries before this, all t20's, what was the rules if a tie in those?
they may change it after this, but as it is, that's the rule

 

Strange breed us English folk.

Rather than celebrating the fact the cricket team have achieved something for the first time in its history, we want to look for reasons to dismiss it..

 

i agree, next we'll be saying stokes runs should go to NZ and Ireland lifted the world cup!
we won, end of

 

Well said, England won fact, the rule was not invented after the 50 over game ended in a tie the rule existed before the game, both teams knew that rule before they went out to bat the super over. New Zealand knew they had to better Englands score and they failed to do that. England won.
Just one other thing, its not the first time they have achieved anything they have won many Test series and the T20 world cup in 2010. Ashes next.

 

I'm glad they didn't use wickets in the rules but I was very surprised that they didn't. It seems a pretty obvious factor to me.

 

NZ were probably well aware of the rule, james neesham been involved before in a tied tie, he was a winner that day

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...tch-group-a-champions-league-twenty20-2013-14

 

I'm delighted that England won, and some sort of tie break has to be found in knockout games. However, I suspect that the "more boundaries" rule must favour the team chasing the total, as they have more incentive / necessity to hit boundaries in the final stages. Maybe I'm completely wrong; I'm sure some cricket statistician somewhere would be able to tell us if the team batting second tends to make more boundaries in limited overs games. If so, this method of separating the teams would appear to be unfair.

 

They changed that rule to try and encourage attacking rather than defensive cricket.

If it had have still been based on wickets England would have chased differently at the end, for instance there is no way Archer would have played the shot he did.

 

Well done LBP. By far the most sensible and accurate post. In my opinion.

 

So dad, you lost?

Yes son.

But you got the same amount of runs?

Yes son.

And you got the same runs in the super over?

Yes son.

So it was a draw?

No son. We lost. The rules of the tournament were very clear before a ball was bowled. We knew very well that we had to beat England’s score before our super over as they scored more boundaries. We had a clear advantage going second in the super overs, we knew exactly what we had to do but we didn’t quite manage it. It was very close but we didn’t quite make it. I’m not sure I agree with the rule but it wasn’t made up on the spot, it was the same rule for all teams. England won.

Ok dad, bad luck.

Thank you son.

 

Is it two shots on the black or one? This is what I ask before I play pool. Both players know the rules that way. The same happened here. Although I'm extremely surprised that wickets down isn't a factor.

Not complaining mind.

 

I'm not disputing it's a great rule. You're right that it's a fairly arbitrary process and one I suspect that the organisers did not see happening.

 

Remember the old UEFA cup days when if scores were level and away goals were level they'd toss a coin? There's a Shankley story when Liverpool went through on the toss. The coin was a disc, red on one side, white the other. Ron Yeats called red and won. Shankley asked him what hed called and when he said red, Shankley replied 'Aye, that's what I would have called," A few years later the same thing happened but white was the winner this time. Shankley again asked what Yeats had called and got the same reply - red to which Shankley said, "You bloody idiot, you should have called white "

 

In school football tournaments in Lincolnshire, if the scores were level at the end of extra time, the number of corners was taken into account. Similarly arbitrary, but probably better than a penalty shoot out.

 

It would be like a penalty corner

 

I would have no problem declaring it a draw, both teams were amazing, sport was the winner.

But, the ICC had some rules to decide who the winner was so they have to be abided by.

However, if they'd put both teams names on the trophy I'd have been happy.

 

There was a period of fifteen consecutive overs in the NZ innings when they didn't score a boundary. I thought NZ played really well, particularly in containing England's batsmen. To me the match showed that Cricket can be played in a highly competitive manner but with incredible sportsmanship. Congratulations to both sides.