Do you agree with the final result?

[straw man]

Still as bemused by the ending of that match as I was when I went to bed early in the morning.

England played some good cricket and all that but there's no getting away from the fact that using a boundary countback to decide the winner is colossally absurd. Entirely arbitrary, they might as well have flipped a coin.

Just cricket things, I guess.

 

[stephen]

This will end up as a trivia question in years to come.

 

[Red Hill]

Boundaries as a decider have been place for ages haven’t they? It was also clear both sides knew it was the rules.

The Aussie meltdown from the usual suspects is funny to read though...

Get real. No one begrudges England the victory, they deserved it. The situation is absurd thought, and I'd almost guarantee some of the English players would feel it's a bit of a hollow victory.

 

[social]

Can only assume that some idiot felt that boundaries = attacking cricket

Fun fact: England faced more dot balls

 

[TheJediBrah]

Get real. No one begrudges England the victory, they deserved it. The situation is absurd thought, and I'd almost guarantee some of the English players would feel it's a bit of a hollow victory.

All the people commiserating for NZ, but in reality England are the ones who we should really feel for. They really deserved this win, and to come like this really, really sucks. They deserved better.

 

[OverratedSanity]

All the people commiserating for NZ, but in reality England are the ones who we should really feel for. They really deserved this win, and to come like this really, really sucks. They deserved better.

Are you stupid? They've just seen their team win the greatest game this sport has ever seen. I'd be over the moon. And I'm sure all of them are.

 

[Shri]

Law 19.8, pertaining to "Overthrow or wilful act of fielder", it would appear that England's second on-field run should not have counted, making it a total of five runs for the incident, not six.

The law states: "If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side, and the allowance for the boundary, and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act."

so yeah kumar ****ed up again

nz won

 

[TheJediBrah]

Are you stupid? They've just seen their team win the greatest game this sport has ever seen. I'd be over the moon. And I'm sure all of them are.

Yes but that's besides the point. Of course everyone's delighted now. But I think it will sink in over time that a lot of people view this World Cup "win" with scepticism. Which is unfortunate.

 

[add_sauce]

Look, neither team deserved to lose that game. But, I don't think it's fair for a CWC to be decided by a Super Over. It should be maybe Five extra overs.

Also, deciding the winner by most boundaries is silly. It should obviously be wickets/runs to determine the winner.

IMO, well done NZ, 2019 CWC winners.

 

[greg]

Yes but that's besides the point. Of course everyone's delighted now. But I think it will sink in over time that a lot of people view this World Cup "win" with scepticism. Which is unfortunate.

The basic essence of a decent tiebreak to produce a result which is otherwise undetermined, is for it to be known in advance so that both sides can take it into account in their decision making. Criticisms of the tiebreaker would be entirely justified if it were concocted and declared after the result. But it wasn’t so they aren’t. All things being equal, on previously used tie breaks, England would have lost (wickets lost) or won (position in group stages).

But it’s irrelevant because in either circumstance the approach of both teams, either when England needed 3(2) off 2 balls, or the same for New Zealand, would have been different.

 

[TheJediBrah]

The basic essence of a decent tiebreak to produce a result which is otherwise undetermined, is for it to be known in advance so that both sides can take it into account in their decision making. Criticisms of the tiebreaker would be entirely justified if it were concocted and declared after the result. But it wasn’t so they aren’t. All things being equal, on previously used tie breaks, England would have lost (wickets lost) or won (position in group stages).

But it’s irrelevant because in either circumstance the approach of both teams, either when England needed 3(2) off 2 balls, or the same for New Zealand, would have been different.

No one took into account in their decision-making. And no one ever will take number of boundaries into consideration as a factor, it would ridiculous to do so. And I really doubt the approach of the teams would be different depending on the tie-breaker used.

As I've said, IMO England deserved to win over NZ, but because of where they finished in the group stage, not a ridiculous measurement like number of boundaries. But there will always be doubt floating around about the result of 2019, both from people joking around and those being entirely serious, because of the method used to decide the winner.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

No one took into account in their decision-making. And no one ever will take number of boundaries into consideration as a factor, it would ridiculous to do so. And I really doubt the approach of the teams would be different depending on the tie-breaker used.

As I've said, IMO England deserved to win over NZ, but because of where they finished in the group stage, not a ridiculous measurement like number of boundaries. But there will always be doubt floating around about the result of 2019, both from people joking around and those being entirely serious, because of the method used to decide the winner.

They did take it into account though. England knew a tied super over meant they won. The field for the last delivery would have been very different if New Zealand had only needed one to win.

 

[greg]

No one took into account in their decision-making. And no one ever will take number of boundaries into consideration as a factor, it would ridiculous to do so. And I really doubt the approach of the teams would be different depending on the tie-breaker used.

You misunderstand, because of course they did. I’m not saying they deliberately set out to score more boundaries because of the tiebreaker. But the approach in the final two balls of the England innings and the final two balls of the match was influenced by the knowledge of how the tiebreaks would play out. Tiebreak methods are arbitrary. Boundaries I agree is a rather silly one, and position in group stage far more appropriate. It has the added advantage that it is determined in advance of the whole match, not just by the final stages. But if England’s win is “diminished” it can only be because a tiebreaker was required at all not because of what that tiebreak, known in advance, and allowing players to adjust accordingly, was.

 

[zorax]

No one took into account in their decision-making.

England sacrificed wickets at the end because they knew having wickets in hand would not be consequential if the game was a tie.

Both teams knew a super-over would be played if a tie. That's why NZ were willing to take the tie to begin with. If the rules did not include a super over, and instead had the higher ranked team from the league stage crowned champion, or used the head to head result from the group stage, then NZ play those last couple of balls very differently.

Both sides were also very aware when the super over started that, if it were a tie, England would be champions. That definitely influenced how NZ batted and how England bowled and fielded that super over.

ut there will always be doubt floating around about the result of 2019, both from people joking around and those being entirely serious, because of the method used to decide the winner.

Is there any doubt floating around the result of the 1999 CWC because an arbitrary tie-breaker was used to send Australia to the final instead of SA?

 

[GIMH]

No one took into account in their decision-making. And no one ever will take number of boundaries into consideration as a factor, it would ridiculous to do so. And I really doubt the approach of the teams would be different depending on the tie-breaker used.

As I've said, IMO England deserved to win over NZ, but because of where they finished in the group stage, not a ridiculous measurement like number of boundaries. But there will always be doubt floating around about the result of 2019, both from people joking around and those being entirely serious, because of the method used to decide the winner.

What a stupid post. If a tied super over didn’t win us the cup, you don’t think we set a different field to try and stop the single?

Like I said last night. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum.

 

[TheJediBrah]

They did take it into account though. England knew a tied super over meant they won. The field for the last delivery would have very different if New Zealand had only need one to win.

Yes of course I mean no one is going to take it into account in their general game plan for the actual matches, not whether or not they'll play accordingly in the moment when they know what they need to do

You misunderstand, because of course they did. I’m not saying they deliberately set out to score more boundaries because of the tiebreaker. But the approach in the final two balls of the England innings and the final two balls of the match was influenced by the knowledge of how the tiebreaks would play out. Tiebreak methods are arbitrary. Boundaries I agree is a rather silly one, and position in group stage far more appropriate. It has the added advantage that it is determined in advance of the whole match, not just by the final stages. But if England’s win is “diminished” it can only be because a tiebreaker was required at all not because of what that tiebreak, known in advance, and allowing players to adjust accordingly, was.

Yes I did misunderstand, apologies

 

[OverratedSanity]

The reason why I feel this was particularly arbitrary was that it prioritized one way of making a score over another equally valid way of making a score. I don't like when that happens. I see no real reason why getting 200 with 12 boundaries is better than 200 off the same number of overs with 10 boundaries.

A super over is the proper tiebreak and eliminates all this rubbish. Hopefully they do this going forward. Sudden death super overs would be great entertainment.

 

[TheJediBrah]

England sacrificed wickets at the end because they knew having wickets in hand would not be consequential if the game was a tie.

A very good point I hadn't thought of.

Is there any doubt floating around the result of the 1999 CWC because an arbitrary tie-breaker was used to send Australia to the final instead of SA?

A couple of very big differences:
- That was semi-final not a final
- The "arbitrary tie-breaker" used in that scenario actually made sense (unless I'm mistaken it was based on head to head?)

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I really wish I could view the alternate timeline where England lost on this rule. Corrin's posting about the issue would be a sight to behold I'm sure.

I'm with Cribb, fine with the end result but consider the method dodgy tstl.

 

[GIMH]

I really wish I could view the alternate timeline where England lost on this rule. Corrin's posting about the issue would be a sight to behold I'm sure.

I'm with Cribb, fine with the end result but consider the method dodgy tstl.

Because of all those times I’ve whined about such things?

My point is fairly clear, which is I also think it’s a silly differentiator but regardless it was set beforehand. Those final balls played out with both teams knowing what they needed to do. That’s the sum of my argument. I’d be sore if my team lost that way but it wouldn’t change the fact that you know the rules up front.