Search results

I'm not aware of any ODI ever being decided in this fashion, let alone a World Cup Final. My point is the tie should be decided by a progressive action, not a regressive one. As others have said, you may as well toss a coin as go by the number of boundaries scored.

Or do the right thing and play a second super over with different bowlers. Job done. None of this countback rubbish, and a clear and obvious winner.

England did win, but I think it also fair to say New Zealand did not lose. Both teams were all square after 51 overs. Quite simply the most incredible cricket match in history, and in a final to boot. We'll be picking the bones from this one for a while yet.

You shrug like it's no big deal :lolol: I find it incredible nobody can be sure exactly what the ruling should have been, umpires included.

But there's no logic in your argument. On the flip side the fielding side would need to attack more to take more wickets than they lost themselves? No side has ever gone out hunting boundaries in case there is a double tie, they just try and score more runs that the other team!

England won the match fairly based on the ICC rules this tournament has been played under, namely boundary count after a tie/tie, but what on earth possessed the ICC to choose such a meaningless option? Runs are runs, one boundary is no more valid than four singles. It would have been much...

I saw a quote from an Indian supporter saying Guptil should never have run our MS Dhoni then none of this would ever have happened. :facepalm:

The great Englishman Edmund Hilary! Oh my, have I been wooshed? If not that is rather an ironic mistake to make there, Knocky!

To be fair to Colinz, I also suggested a second super over would have been a fair way to end the stalemate.. To lighten the mood again, how about this moment when the unassuming kiwi captain finds out he is player of the tournament :lolol: Much deserved Mr Williamson. :bowdown: 1150480458121134082

He should have been given out, pure and simple, but because the ball wasn't hitting a stump full on he gets the benefit of the umpires mistake. If the umpire had given the exact same delivery as out, and Roy appealed, he still would have been out. One of crickets peculiarities, and on such...

I was there for both Black Caps games, the Hollies was absolutely rocking, even when it was 99% pakistani & 1% kiwi :lolol:

Yes, I've seen it happen, but it is very much out of the ordinary and the player needs to be sufficiently balanced to make the pass which I don't think Trent was. And besides, he' s my absolute favourite player ever so you leave him alone!

You're counting Trent's catch tight on the boundary rope as a fielding mistake? That's a perfectionist speaking, right there! He didn't really get any time to offload the ball.

The match did reach the point where no team deserved to lose. That has been said before of course, in many sports, but never to this extremity. I think, because of that, the English team didn't celebrate as wholeheartedly as they would have done if they had won convincingly. They came over...

Just begin writing in a Two, someone will jog you and make it a Six :wink:

If you are going to bounce posts, can someone please bounce post #344? I really don't want to bounce my own post, but :whistle:

It does seem odd that they rolled back to boundaries. As the super over was tied, just play another super over!

Ahhh that's what I'm talking about, great to see. What an utterly heartbreaking picture. Is that Chris Woakes? Good man.

Wise words. Actually, in terms of sportsmanship, I didn't notice anyone consoling Guptil or Neesham when they were down on their haunches at the end, a la Flintoff consoling Brett Lee. Maybe the cameras never picked it up. It would have been the first thing I would have done after the tightest...

I usually find myself agreeing with your posts, but today you gave up way too soon! You weren't the only one to be fair.