How is England's 2019 World Cup win in the final not a fluke?

[Arham_PakFan]

It’s not a fluke because they are the number 1 odi ranked team. The victory in the final based on boundaries scored cannot be justified however.

Agreed.

England got lucky in the final. But they were among the most consistent teams in the world and played well enough in this tournament.

 

[James]

Sorry to say it but if roles were reversed and NZ had won in the manner that England won, most of the PPers would be defending the rules, absolutely loving it and mocking England with lol emojis.

 

[Aman]

Sorry to say it but if roles were reversed and NZ had won in the manner that England won, most of the PPers would be defending the rules, absolutely loving it and mocking England with lol emojis.

The fluke stuff from most here is directed at Mamoon, he's a hypocrite because he calls all of Pakistan's big wins flukes (including the CT, which they won comprehensively). Yet this England win in which they had a lot of fortune he's downplaying.

 

[hur rizvi]

Instead of debating on fluke, rules, luck, etc, as neutrals we should enjoy the great game of cricket which we witnessed!

Congratulations to England and it’s not their fault that we have some absurd rules in cricket

 

[Technics 1210]

Ben Stokes: I’ll be saying sorry about fluke runs for the rest of my life

With England scrambling two singles the match ended in a tie, with Stokes immediately returning to the crease for the Super Over, although he joked that he did not volunteer to bowl it after being hit for four sixes by Carlos Brathwaite in the final over of the World Twenty20 final defeat by West Indies three years ago. “I said to Kane Williamson I’ll be apologising for that for the rest of my life,” Stokes said. “I have apologised countless times for that fluke, it’s not how you want to get them. Playing against New Zealand is always a great event, they are a seriously good team and really good lads. There was no chance I wasn’t going to bat in that Super Over but I definitely wasn’t going to bowl anyway after last time.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...-fluke-runs-for-the-rest-of-my-life-m3vp2xnmw

 

[Captain caveman]

Forget about it being a fluke, the question is how can england's win be legitimate?!!

 

[Aman]

The only good thing to come out of this is we didn't lose to England.

 

[Salma_T]

Sorry to say it but if roles were reversed and NZ had won in the manner that England won, most of the PPers would be defending the rules, absolutely loving it and mocking England with lol emojis.

Exactly [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] it is just the hatred of England that is behind all this faux outrage. As if any of Asians side had been England (barring India) not a peep.

 

[Technics 1210]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_World_Cup



Engladf's entry : Match and Super Over tied, England won by more number of boundaries and pure luck
Scorecard

 

[Salma_T]

Forget about it being a fluke, the question is how can england's win be legitimate?!!

It was the rules of the game however absurd they were both team were aware of them.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=149705]Mean&Green[/MENTION] [MENTION=134359]Cricket lover 27[/MENTION]

To say that this English team didn't disprove the notion that they are bottlers and mental midgets is one of the most ridiculous assessment anyone can make. Frankly, it is simply disingenuous.

What England have done in this World Cup after the Australia match at Lord's speaks volumes of the character of this team. The way they came out all guns blazing against India's best bowling attack in the tournament was an early sign of how this team is not fazed by anything. They could have easily gone into their shell and tried to play safe cricket, but they stamped their authority and took the Indian attack to the cleaners like no team had in the tournament.

They also followed it up with the terrific burst against the New Zealand pace attack that has proved to be extremely formidable and difficult to dominate.

Then they followed it up with perhaps the performance of the tournament against Australia in the semi-finals. All this talk of Australia's formidable record in knockouts, their ability to handle pressure and how ruthless they were etc. blew into a million pieces - the lions ravaged the kangaroos from limb to limb.

The final is a story in itself. England had their ups and downs, but they way came at New Zealand again and again showed the desire and the hunger of this champion team.

They asserted pressure over New Zealand after they looked like getting a big total at 80/1 in 18 overs, Roy and Bairstow kept attacking Henry and Boult even they were being dominated, they way Stokes and Buttler strung together the defining partnership when England were reduced to 80/4, the way Stokes batted with the tail and hit an incredibly clutch six over deep mid-wicket in the final over after playing two dots,

Buttler getting a crucial boundary on the last ball of the super-over, Archer holding his nerve after getting hit for a six on a poor delivery, England's fielding in the deep (apart from one instance) where a slightest error would have cost them the World Cup, the quick pickup and the throw on the final ball, Buttler's flawless collection and presence of mind to save a second by hitting the stumps with one glove instead of two are some of the many moments in the final that proved this England side is not bottle job.

Calling them mental midgets after the emotions they have displayed and the moments they have produced in this World Cup is pure drivel. This is one of the must clutch teams in ODI cricket history and this glory will spur them to greater heights.

 

[in_cutter]

If NZ had won it would have been a fluke. They are a low rank team and batted poorly throughout the tournament.

England were a top before the WC. Truly deserved the win, and this is brilliant for the game.

So only low ranked teams win by ‘fluke’?

What kind of logic is this?

 

[Mamoon]

Looks like you don't know the definition of a "fluke".

Fluke is when you win due to luck not due to your abilities.

This was a fluke but the deserving winners won in the end.

I define "fluke" in cricket terms in the following manner: If a team or a player cannot replicate the performance against the same team in the same conditions more often than not, then it is a fluke.

This England team is #1 in the world and will win a World Cup in England more often than not. Similarly, they will also beat New Zealand more often than not. It is important to differentiate between fluke and luck.

 

[James]

The ricochet off Ben’s bat was a fluke moment of course, but England winning the Cricket World Cup as a whole picture is definitely not a fluke.

 

[in_cutter]

I define "fluke" in cricket terms in the following manner: If a team or a player cannot replicate the performance against the same team in the same conditions more often than not, then it is a fluke.

This England team is #1 in the world and will win a World Cup in England more often than not. Similarly, they will also beat New Zealand more often than not. It is important to differentiate between fluke and luck.

What matters is what happens on the day. Regardless of the rankings, the best team will always win. Your definition of a fluke is wrong.

A fluke is officially: an unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.

The Stokes bat/overthrow incident was unlikely & a fluke hence Eng win can be termed as a fluke.

But anyway, I am happy for Eng. They deserved it.

 

[Gullycricket]

What matters is what happens on the day. Regardless of the rankings, the best team will always win. Your definition of a fluke is wrong.

A fluke is officially: an unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.

The Stokes bat/overthrow incident was unlikely & a fluke hence Eng win can be termed as a fluke.

But anyway, I am happy for Eng. They deserved it.

My point exactly.Will stokes on same pitch in same circumstances score same 15 runs...Dont think so

 

[Mamoon]

What matters is what happens on the day. Regardless of the rankings, the best team will always win. Your definition of a fluke is wrong.

A fluke is officially: an unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.

The Stokes bat/overthrow incident was unlikely & a fluke hence Eng win can be termed as a fluke.

But anyway, I am happy for Eng. They deserved it.

Rankings, and "best team" tend to go hand in hand. More often than not, the highest ranked team will beat the ones ranked below them. Rankings are not formed from nothing - they reflect the capability and the skills of the team.

 

[Gullycricket]

Rankings, and "best team" tend to go hand in hand. More often than not, the highest ranked team will beat the ones ranked below them. Rankings are not formed from nothing - they reflect the capability and the skills of the team.

I remember you saying we fluked our No 1 ranking in tests also

 

[Mamoon]

I remember you saying we fluked our No 1 ranking in tests also

Yes because we wouldn't be number 1 if it wasn't for a washed out Test between India and West Indies.

 

[jagatk]

It was the rules of the game however absurd they were both team were aware of them.

Now even taufel has come out and said that the rules were incorrectly applied. It should have been 5 runs not 6 and stokes should never have been on strike for last 2 balls.

 

[Technics 1210]

Don't feed the troll guys. After India lost in the SF, England were his preferred team to back to win the WC. A fluke prediction in its own right.

The only time a fluke occurs is when Pakistan play according to him.

If the SF between England and Australia was played 10 times, Australia would win 9/10 times (recall the group match). Thus England's win in the SF, and the WC win was a fluke, according to his delusional logic.

The only performance that matters is on the day.

 

[OmarKhan99]

All the talk of England being chokers and bottlers has been completely nuked. This team has balls of steel. What they have done in this World Cup under pressure is the stuff of gods.

Calm down, mate. Let's not go overboard.

 

[Xoib]

bhai you dont get it Pakstan-ENgland washout in 92 means Pakistan fluked it but ball deflecting of Stokes bat going for four and umpire incorrectly giving it 6 instead of 5 and bringing Stokes back on strike is not a fluke but ENgland deserved it since they were best side for the past 4 years but Pakistan got lucky even though Pakistan won most major multi national tourneys between 87-92.

 

[Technics 1210]

Calm down, mate. Let's not go overboard.

He's excited because after making 100 predictions in the WC, 1 of his WC predictions came true. Now that is what you call a fluke! 1 in 100!

 

[silentkiller187]

Biggest fluke win in sports history, England bottled it again and if it wasn't for divine intervention, with the boundary catch and the overthrows (which were miscalculated) NZ would have been deserved winners. England have played well this world cup but haven't steam rolled teams like the past indian and Aussie teams have done, so lets stop acting like they are the greatest ODI team ever.

 

[Cricket lover 27]

[MENTION=149705]Mean&Green[/MENTION] [MENTION=134359]Cricket lover 27[/MENTION]

To say that this English team didn't disprove the notion that they are bottlers and mental midgets is one of the most ridiculous assessment anyone can make. Frankly, it is simply disingenuous.

What England have done in this World Cup after the Australia match at Lord's speaks volumes of the character of this team. The way they came out all guns blazing against India's best bowling attack in the tournament was an early sign of how this team is not fazed by anything. They could have easily gone into their shell and tried to play safe cricket, but they stamped their authority and took the Indian attack to the cleaners like no team had in the tournament.

They also followed it up with the terrific burst against the New Zealand pace attack that has proved to be extremely formidable and difficult to dominate.

Then they followed it up with perhaps the performance of the tournament against Australia in the semi-finals. All this talk of Australia's formidable record in knockouts, their ability to handle pressure and how ruthless they were etc. blew into a million pieces - the lions ravaged the kangaroos from limb to limb.

The final is a story in itself. England had their ups and downs, but they way came at New Zealand again and again showed the desire and the hunger of this champion team.

They asserted pressure over New Zealand after they looked like getting a big total at 80/1 in 18 overs, Roy and Bairstow kept attacking Henry and Boult even they were being dominated, they way Stokes and Buttler strung together the defining partnership when England were reduced to 80/4, the way Stokes batted with the tail and hit an incredibly clutch six over deep mid-wicket in the final over after playing two dots,

Buttler getting a crucial boundary on the last ball of the super-over, Archer holding his nerve after getting hit for a six on a poor delivery, England's fielding in the deep (apart from one instance) where a slightest error would have cost them the World Cup, the quick pickup and the throw on the final ball, Buttler's flawless collection and presence of mind to save a second by hitting the stumps with one glove instead of two are some of the many moments in the final that proved this England side is not bottle job.

Calling them mental midgets after the emotions they have displayed and the moments they have produced in this World Cup is pure drivel. This is one of the must clutch teams in ODI cricket history and this glory will spur them to greater heights.

This team has done nothing to prove that they are the best in this World Cup.

India and Australia won their finals convincingly without the need of divine intervention more so they did not lose to 6th or 8th ranked teams in the course of their campaign.

And no best teams don’t need luck they make their own way.

 

[Mamoon]

This team has done nothing to prove that they are the best in this World Cup.

India and Australia won their finals convincingly without the need of divine intervention more so they did not lose to 6th or 8th ranked teams in the course of their campaign.

And no best teams don’t need luck they make their own way.

India and Australia got tailor-made home conditions in 2011 and 2015. India used a part-timer like Yuvraj as a specialist spinner on those slow tracks and had Munaf Patel in their lineup.

Do you think they would have won the World Cup with Munaf Patel and Yuvraj Singh in their bowling attack anywhere else in the world?

In 2015, the only time Australia stepped out of their shores, they lost 8 wickets for 20 runs in Christchurch.

They never had to play on the type of wicket that England did against Sri Lanka. England had to beat more odds to win their home World Cup than India and Australia.

 

[Mamoon]

Don't feed the troll guys. After India lost in the SF, England were his preferred team to back to win the WC. A fluke prediction in its own right.

The only time a fluke occurs is when Pakistan play according to him.

If the SF between England and Australia was played 10 times, Australia would win 9/10 times (recall the group match). Thus England's win in the SF, and the WC win was a fluke, according to his delusional logic.

The only performance that matters is on the day.

Nonsense.

England and India were always my two favorites that is why I expected them to meet in the final. It was never India first or England second.

England is comfortably better than Australia, and they will beat them more often than not. The semi-final wasn’t a fluke by any stretch. If England and Australia play a series anywhere in the world, England will win.

He's excited because after making 100 predictions in the WC, 1 of his WC predictions came true. Now that is what you call a fluke! 1 in 100!

It is not a competition. I don’t keep track of it. However, the World Cup went according to the expectations. England/India won, and Pakistan didn’t qualify for the semi-finals.

Anyway, as I said, you only care about having the last word. Go on, have the last word.

 

[dhump]

The match is still ended up in a tie, so I don't know how are they champions.

 

[BuffaloSoldier]

As a Pakistani I would have preferred for India to win fairly over this farcical English ‘win’.

Now that is saying something.

 

[Technics 1210]

Nonsense.

England and India were always my two favorites that is why I expected them to meet in the final. It was never India first or England second.

England is comfortably better than Australia, and they will beat them more often than not. The semi-final wasn’t a fluke by any stretch. If England and Australia play a series anywhere in the world, England will win.



It is not a competition. I don’t keep track of it. However, the World Cup went according to the expectations. England/India won, and Pakistan didn’t qualify for the semi-finals.

Anyway, as I said, you only care about having the last word. Go on, have the last word.

Your own logic is getting exposed for what it is, biased.

I don't need the last word, but you need every word to defend your hypocrisy and delusional logic.

You got lucky with your prediction, favouring India through out the comp, and when India got knocked out, you picked England as your first favourite team, and there are no amount of words that will change this fact.

Your best defense now is *my prediction is better than yours*.

And stop pretending your were following England for 4 years, everyone can see your arguments are based on highlights and headlines.

 

[Extra_Cover]

Yes because we wouldn't be number 1 if it wasn't for a washed out Test between India and West Indies.

Yes and England wouldn't be champions if it wasn't for Bat of God moment.

 

[London_Lahori]

Biggest fluke in the history of the sport that will never be matched again [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

Can you say that again without crying Aman

 

[Titan24]

England had luck that is clear. But I am a big believer you make your own luck in sport. England have prepared and selected the right players for LO finally. They played convincingly in bilaterals and since the Sri Lanka defeat.

I wanted NZ to win. But I have to admit that in the England got the luck which there preparation deserved. Which ever team win would have earned it.

This is my opinion. Other posters can be bitter . That is fine. But I don't see a point in being bitter. England won. No amount of complaining will change that.

Cant wait for luck to do magic for Pakistan in next year’s T20 WC as they have also selected the right players and have worked hard to achieve the no 1 rankings in T20s.

I hope your theory of deserving luck applies there as well.

 

[OmarKhan99]

[MENTION=149705]Mean&Green[/MENTION] [MENTION=134359]Cricket lover 27[/MENTION]

To say that this English team didn't disprove the notion that they are bottlers and mental midgets is one of the most ridiculous assessment anyone can make. Frankly, it is simply disingenuous.

What England have done in this World Cup after the Australia match at Lord's speaks volumes of the character of this team. The way they came out all guns blazing against India's best bowling attack in the tournament was an early sign of how this team is not fazed by anything. They could have easily gone into their shell and tried to play safe cricket, but they stamped their authority and took the Indian attack to the cleaners like no team had in the tournament.

They also followed it up with the terrific burst against the New Zealand pace attack that has proved to be extremely formidable and difficult to dominate.

Then they followed it up with perhaps the performance of the tournament against Australia in the semi-finals. All this talk of Australia's formidable record in knockouts, their ability to handle pressure and how ruthless they were etc. blew into a million pieces - the lions ravaged the kangaroos from limb to limb.

The final is a story in itself. England had their ups and downs, but they way came at New Zealand again and again showed the desire and the hunger of this champion team.

They asserted pressure over New Zealand after they looked like getting a big total at 80/1 in 18 overs, Roy and Bairstow kept attacking Henry and Boult even they were being dominated, they way Stokes and Buttler strung together the defining partnership when England were reduced to 80/4, the way Stokes batted with the tail and hit an incredibly clutch six over deep mid-wicket in the final over after playing two dots,

Buttler getting a crucial boundary on the last ball of the super-over, Archer holding his nerve after getting hit for a six on a poor delivery, England's fielding in the deep (apart from one instance) where a slightest error would have cost them the World Cup, the quick pickup and the throw on the final ball, Buttler's flawless collection and presence of mind to save a second by hitting the stumps with one glove instead of two are some of the many moments in the final that proved this England side is not bottle job.

Calling them mental midgets after the emotions they have displayed and the moments they have produced in this World Cup is pure drivel. This is one of the must clutch teams in ODI cricket history and this glory will spur them to greater heights.

That's a more apt description of Pakistan's efforts in the Champions Trophy Final, which indeed was a mammoth thumping.

But apparently, one team that played the "brave" brand of cricket in the group stages against tournament favorites, India, deserved to be the tournament winners (I agree), while the team that did so in an ICC Tournament Final was at the mercy of 'luck' (don't agree).

This particular argument of yours doesn't make much sense.

 

[Cricket lover 27]

India and Australia got tailor-made home conditions in 2011 and 2015. India used a part-timer like Yuvraj as a specialist spinner on those slow tracks and had Munaf Patel in their lineup.

Do you think they would have won the World Cup with Munaf Patel and Yuvraj Singh in their bowling attack anywhere else in the world?

In 2015, the only time Australia stepped out of their shores, they lost 8 wickets for 20 runs in Christchurch.

They never had to play on the type of wicket that England did against Sri Lanka. England had to beat more odds to win their home World Cup than India and Australia.

So, you are accusing the ICC of providing pitches suitable to Indian and Australian team in 2011 and 2015. It certainly wouldn’t have stopped them then from providing it for England as well. So, no India and Australia fought against all odds and did not give a meek surrender to teams which are well below their rankings.

And aren’t champion teams supposed to play well regardless of how unsuitable the pitch is for them. There is certainly no excuse for England to lose to a team like Sri Lanka, a team that was thrashed by New Zealand by 10 wickets and to even Pakistan, a team that had lost its last 13 odi’s coming into the World Cup.

And they certainly did not beat any odd because they lost when they did not have conditions suitable for them so much so that they could have easily lost the final had it not been for the divine intervention and even then they tied the match and did not win it but on a technicality.

This is certainly not how a champion team out to be.

 

[Hasan123]

Cant wait for luck to do magic for Pakistan in next year’s T20 WC as they have also selected the right players and have worked hard to achieve the no 1 rankings in T20s.

I hope your theory of deserving luck applies there as well.

I don't believe in winning ICC tournaments by flukes. If Pakistan win, I will say they deserve it.

Btw what happened to Pakistan being more fun in knockouts than NZ ? )

 

[Hasan123]

Yep. As I said in another thread, runs are runs whether they came in boundaries or through singles, runs are runs whether they were scored with 1 wicket down or 10 wickets down. The fairest way to determine the winner was to go for another super over.

It hurts though because I've always been a kiwis fan. If a NZ loss is hurting me so much how much would a Pakistan loss hurt

I wanted New Zealand to win. England winning doesn't upset me that much. Just think it may have benefited NZ more and been a better story.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Definitely only team to win a world cup by technically scoring one run less ( 6 vs 5).

 

[tyron_woodley]

India and Australia got tailor-made home conditions in 2011 and 2015. India used a part-timer like Yuvraj as a specialist spinner on those slow tracks and had Munaf Patel in their lineup.

Do you think they would have won the World Cup with Munaf Patel and Yuvraj Singh in their bowling attack anywhere else in the world?

In 2015, the only time Australia stepped out of their shores, they lost 8 wickets for 20 runs in Christchurch.

They never had to play on the type of wicket that England did against Sri Lanka. England had to beat more odds to win their home World Cup than India and Australia.

luck was on England's side. whether you like it or not the pitches were tailored to England's strengths. They are a mediocre side outside of flat patta pitches.
They rigged the boundaries lmao to counter spin. They had favourable pitches vs india and new zealand prior to the semis.
In the semis they did really well. must give them credit there. Lastly, they dint deserve to win against new zealand. They lost in my book. Yea I know no one cares about what I think but on paper they never beat new zealand since the scores were tied.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Nonsense.

England and India were always my two favorites that is why I expected them to meet in the final. It was never India first or England second.

England is comfortably better than Australia, and they will beat them more often than not. The semi-final wasn’t a fluke by any stretch. If England and Australia play a series anywhere in the world, England will win.



It is not a competition. I don’t keep track of it. However, the World Cup went according to the expectations. England/India won, and Pakistan didn’t qualify for the semi-finals.

Anyway, as I said, you only care about having the last word. Go on, have the last word.

No not tailor made? Don't use persons who take wickets to support your theory. India always helps part time spinners as well. You sound like India "designed pitches" to suit the advantage. None of the team played either on a mine field. For christsake Ireland beat ENgland by hunting down 300 plus totals. ENgland tied the match with India. SA beat INdia by chasing 299. Infact 2011 world cup had amazing pitches.

Australia gave batting pitches to everyone unlike 2019 where only England played on batting paradises early on others were playing on dodgy surfaces.

 

[BDfanforever]

Calling them mental midgets after the emotions they have displayed and the moments they have produced in this World Cup is pure drivel. This is one of the must clutch teams in ODI cricket history and this glory will spur them to greater heights.

Now you are going overboard with the hype of “ODI history.” All the past Aus team were far superior. Hell Aus even beat them at this World Cup again too.

 

[Mamoon]

England have won the World Cup fair and square. End of story:

To the Pakistani fans who are moaning:

You should have beaten West Indies after having the best possible preparation for the World Cup. Apart from Afghanistan, no team lost to West Indies. You had your chance of knocking England out but you failed.

To the Indian fans who are moaning:

Your "best bowling attack in the world" should not have crapped their pants against England. No excuse for an attack of Bumrah, Shami, Kuldeep and Chahal to concede 337. You had the chance to knock England out and you failed.

To the New Zealand fans who are moaning:

You too had the chance to knock England out. 306 was a bit total to chase on a slowish pitch, but it was not impossible. However, you produced the most gutless and cowardly batting performance one can imagine. You were all out for 186 in 45 overs, chasing 306. A complete disgrace. Imagine maintaining a run rate of 4.13 while chasing 306.

Even a real Kiwi bird would show more guts in a fight versus a real lion.

In the final, yes things did not go your way, but you should have scored more runs batting first after getting lucky with the toss. You scored 20 runs in the last 18 balls even though you had 4 wickets in hand, and Santner ducked the last delivery of the innings.

You bowled well, but you shouldn't have allowed England to get within touching distance of the total after reducing them to 86/4 after 23 overs. You should have attacked more at that time and reducing England to 100/5 or 120/6 and you would have won the World Cup.

To the Australian fans who are moaning:

In the semi-final, all your so-called big match mentality and winning culture went for a hop when your Kangaroos got ravaged by the three lions from limb to limb. You had absolutely no answer to England's intensity. Again, you had the chance to knock England out and you failed.

England have played incredible cricket in the last 3 years, and they have deserved to win this World Cup more than any team. No other team showed the desperation they had. They even changed their rules to fast-track a talented fast bowler because they felt their bowling was light. If any team deserved some luck to win the World Cup, it was them. What did you guys do?

Pakistan:

You have played like a minnow for two years and in spite of getting a brutal reality check in the Asia Cup, you showed no urgency and no desperation. You limped into the World Cup on one leg with a 13 match losing streak and hoped that things will go in your favour. You gave free passes to under-performers and you took no note of your captaining not taking individual responsibility because of your obsession with 1992 and the cornered tigers rubbish.

India:

In spite of going through what many would call the golden generation of Indian cricket, you have failed to maximise your potential. You also have the IPL which is equal to international cricket, and yet, you continue to pick talentless hacks in the middle-order. What on earth are the likes of DK, Rayudu and Jadhav doing in the Indian team in 2019? Why didn't you put more faith in elite talents like Shaw, Gill etc.? Pant is a brilliant talent, but you should have trusted him earlier instead of bringing him midway in the World Cup.

New Zealand:

In spite of your brilliant sporting culture, your cricket lacks ambition and emotion. You play like robots and if you win, great and if you lose, so what. This attitude makes you look like gentlemen but this why you are also losers. If the Black Caps had 10% of the intensity of the All Blacks, they would have had multiple World Cups now. Perhaps you need to sell cricket to the Maoris, the New Zealand whites of New Zealand lack the competitive edge.

You are happy to be the good guys of cricket but with no silverware. Learn from England and how desperate they were to win this World Cup.

Australia:

You left your preparations too late. Since the last World Cup, apart from getting demolished by England a dozen times, you have done nothing in ODIs. Your approach was lazy and you didn't seem motivated to defend your title. However, you suddenly woke up a month before the World Cup and won back to back ODI series. However, preparing the night before an exam can help you pass the course, but it is unlikely that you will top the class or get an A.

Your World Cup campaign mirrored your preparation. You did enough to be competitive, but your years of laziness took out your competitive spirit and you were not up for a fight in the knockouts.

All of you had the opportunities to knock England out so that they wouldn't have won this so-called farcical World Cup final. You either weren't good enough or hungry enough, so now there is no need to whine. The most deserving team has won the World Cup and justice has been served. England's triumph is a lesson to all of you teams.

Hard work pays-off, and it did pay-off for England and rest assured, they are not going to rest on their laurels now. They will immediately start working towards the next World Cup as well. This is how you create a high performance culture.

 

[Mamoon]

Now you are going overboard with the hype of “ODI history.” All the past Aus team were far superior. Hell Aus even beat them at this World Cup again too.

I am not talking about superiority and skills. I am talking about ability to handle pressure.

This England team won't beat the 2000s Australia, but at least they won't play them like cowards which so many teams of that era did.

 

[Mamoon]

No not tailor made? Don't use persons who take wickets to support your theory. India always helps part time spinners as well. You sound like India "designed pitches" to suit the advantage. None of the team played either on a mine field. For christsake Ireland beat ENgland by hunting down 300 plus totals. ENgland tied the match with India. SA beat INdia by chasing 299. Infact 2011 world cup had amazing pitches.

Australia gave batting pitches to everyone unlike 2019 where only England played on batting paradises early on others were playing on dodgy surfaces.

The point is that India got regular Indian wickets in their home World Cup and Australia got regular Australian wickets in their home World Cup. However, England did not - the wicket for the final, as well as the wicket for the New Zealand group match and the Sri Lanka march are not regular English ODI wickets.

 

[Mamoon]

luck was on England's side. whether you like it or not the pitches were tailored to England's strengths. They are a mediocre side outside of flat patta pitches.
They rigged the boundaries lmao to counter spin. They had favourable pitches vs india and new zealand prior to the semis.
In the semis they did really well. must give them credit there. Lastly, they dint deserve to win against new zealand. They lost in my book. Yea I know no one cares about what I think but on paper they never beat new zealand since the scores were tied.

Why shouldn't they get favourable pitches when India and Australia got them too in 2011 and 2015? Have you forgotten that this World Cup was in England?

 

[faizanj]

England performed well to reach the final. They definitely won the final by fluke but New Zealand's semi final qualification was also a fluke. The washout games went in their favour.

Those who think Pakistan won the CT17 by fluke should google the meaning of it. We smashed both Eng and India in the semis and the final.

 

[Wahid1234]

England have won the World Cup fair and square. End of story:

To the Pakistani fans who are moaning:

You should have beaten West Indies after having the best possible preparation for the World Cup. Apart from Afghanistan, no team lost to West Indies. You had your chance of knocking England out but you failed.

To the Indian fans who are moaning:

Your "best bowling attack in the world" should not have crapped their pants against England. No excuse for an attack of Bumrah, Shami, Kuldeep and Chahal to concede 337. You had the chance to knock England out and you failed.

To the New Zealand fans who are moaning:

You too had the chance to knock England out. 306 was a bit total to chase on a slowish pitch, but it was not impossible. However, you produced the most gutless and cowardly batting performance one can imagine. You were all out for 186 in 45 overs, chasing 306. A complete disgrace. Imagine maintaining a run rate of 4.13 while chasing 306.

Even a real Kiwi bird would show more guts in a fight versus a real lion.

In the final, yes things did not go your way, but you should have scored more runs batting first after getting lucky with the toss. You scored 20 runs in the last 18 balls even though you had 4 wickets in hand, and Santner ducked the last delivery of the innings.

You bowled well, but you shouldn't have allowed England to get within touching distance of the total after reducing them to 86/4 after 23 overs. You should have attacked more at that time and reducing England to 100/5 or 120/6 and you would have won the World Cup.

To the Australian fans who are moaning:

In the semi-final, all your so-called big match mentality and winning culture went for a hop when your Kangaroos got ravaged by the three lions from limb to limb. You had absolutely no answer to England's intensity. Again, you had the chance to knock England out and you failed.

England have played incredible cricket in the last 3 years, and they have deserved to win this World Cup more than any team. No other team showed the desperation they had. They even changed their rules to fast-track a talented fast bowler because they felt their bowling was light. If any team deserved some luck to win the World Cup, it was them. What did you guys do?

Pakistan:

You have played like a minnow for two years and in spite of getting a brutal reality check in the Asia Cup, you showed no urgency and no desperation. You limped into the World Cup on one leg with a 13 match losing streak and hoped that things will go in your favour. You gave free passes to under-performers and you took no note of your captaining not taking individual responsibility because of your obsession with 1992 and the cornered tigers rubbish.

India:

In spite of going through what many would call the golden generation of Indian cricket, you have failed to maximise your potential. You also have the IPL which is equal to international cricket, and yet, you continue to pick talentless hacks in the middle-order. What on earth are the likes of DK, Rayudu and Jadhav doing in the Indian team in 2019? Why didn't you put more faith in elite talents like Shaw, Gill etc.? Pant is a brilliant talent, but you should have trusted him earlier instead of bringing him midway in the World Cup.

New Zealand:

In spite of your brilliant sporting culture, your cricket lacks ambition and emotion. You play like robots and if you win, great and if you lose, so what. This attitude makes you look like gentlemen but this why you are also losers. If the Black Caps had 10% of the intensity of the All Blacks, they would have had multiple World Cups now. Perhaps you need to sell cricket to the Maoris, the New Zealand whites of New Zealand lack the competitive edge.

You are happy to be the good guys of cricket but with no silverware. Learn from England and how desperate they were to win this World Cup.

Australia:

You left your preparations too late. Since the last World Cup, apart from getting demolished by England a dozen times, you have done nothing in ODIs. Your approach was lazy and you didn't seem motivated to defend your title. However, you suddenly woke up a month before the World Cup and won back to back ODI series. However, preparing the night before an exam can help you pass the course, but it is unlikely that you will top the class or get an A.

Your World Cup campaign mirrored your preparation. You did enough to be competitive, but your years of laziness took out your competitive spirit and you were not up for a fight in the knockouts.

All of you had the opportunities to knock England out so that they wouldn't have won this so-called farcical World Cup final. You either weren't good enough or hungry enough, so now there is no need to whine. The most deserving team has won the World Cup and justice has been served. England's triumph is a lesson to all of you teams.

Hard work pays-off, and it did pay-off for England and rest assured, they are not going to rest on their laurels now. They will immediately start working towards the next World Cup as well. This is how you create a high performance culture.

I'm inclined to agree with you Mamoon. Very well said. I believe you need a bit of luck in all sports along with some hard work and England truly deserved their world cup triumph as they clearly played a brand of cricket which requires guts to do so and with it came glory also. Hope Pakistan can learn a thing or two from the English and get rid of all the TTFS and bring in new talent.

 

[ak619]

While it's absolutely true that England haven't done anything wrong and don't have anything to feel bad about their victory, it is also true from what I'm seeing here and literally everywhere that 95% of all non-English viewers feel robbed.

Unfortunately, [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] I think much like Ben Stokes who said he will have to apologize for that overthrow for the rest of his life, you too will have to keep defending and justifying England's win here for the rest of your life.

This is not how a champion team is born..not by tie-ing twice in the same match.

Greatest WC final ever and it was begging for the trophy to be shared. Unfortunately ICC & MCC have always been 5 steps behind the times. No wonder people are saying that cricket is a dying sport...

 

[Mamoon]

So, you are accusing the ICC of providing pitches suitable to Indian and Australian team in 2011 and 2015. It certainly wouldn’t have stopped them then from providing it for England as well. So, no India and Australia fought against all odds and did not give a meek surrender to teams which are well below their rankings.

And aren’t champion teams supposed to play well regardless of how unsuitable the pitch is for them. There is certainly no excuse for England to lose to a team like Sri Lanka, a team that was thrashed by New Zealand by 10 wickets and to even Pakistan, a team that had lost its last 13 odi’s coming into the World Cup.

And they certainly did not beat any odd because they lost when they did not have conditions suitable for them so much so that they could have easily lost the final had it not been for the divine intervention and even then they tied the match and did not win it but on a technicality.

This is certainly not how a champion team out to be.

The ICC did not have the "neutral pitch" fever when India and Australia were playing on home pitches in 2011 and 2015. Even Pakistan/Sri Lanka (2011) and New Zealand (2015) benefited from home style pitches.

The India and Pakistan quarter-finals in 2011 were farcical. Other than forcibly telling Australia and West Indies to lose, they tried everything within their powers to ensure an India vs Pakistan blockbuster semi-final. They prepared turning wickets in Ahmedabad and Dhaka to give massive advantage to India and Pakistan.

The 2015 World Cup was geared for the two host nations to play in the final. Australia got proper home pitches throughout the World Cup and so did New Zealand. The only time they played in each other's homes, they got exposed.

Since the ICC wanted an Australia vs New Zealand final, they gave India a bouncy pitch in the SF and Johnson bounced Kohli out. On the other hand, New Zealand got a typical New Zealand pitch on their tiny ground where McCullum's bling slogging was very effective.

In this World Cup, the pitch for the Sri Lankan game was a joke. Yes England should have still won, but the ICC ensured that they didn't have any home advantage. Also, the injury to Roy did not help.

 

[Wahid1234]

While it's absolutely true that England haven't done anything wrong and don't have anything to feel bad about their victory, it is also true from what I'm seeing here and literally everywhere that 95% of all non-English viewers feel robbed.

Unfortunately, [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] I think much like Ben Stokes who said he will have to apologize for that overthrow for the rest of his life, you too will have to keep defending and justifying England's win here for the rest of your life.

This is not how a champion team is born..not by tie-ing twice in the same match.

Greatest WC final ever and it was begging for the trophy to be shared. Unfortunately ICC & MCC have always been 5 steps behind the times. No wonder people are saying that cricket is a dying sport...

By your logic every time there is a tie you need to share the world cup like that you will never get a winner. Cricket will only grow of we witness matches like that as we had a winner at the end of the contest. Imagine a football world cup final and it level after 90 minutes and the teams share the trophy that is absurd. That's why we have penaly shootout in football to decide a winner. So keep your joke of a logic to yourself as Mamoon is spot on here in what he said.

 

[Mamoon]

While it's absolutely true that England haven't done anything wrong and don't have anything to feel bad about their victory, it is also true from what I'm seeing here and literally everywhere that 95% of all non-English viewers feel robbed.

Unfortunately, [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] I think much like Ben Stokes who said he will have to apologize for that overthrow for the rest of his life, you too will have to keep defending and justifying England's win here for the rest of your life.

This is not how a champion team is born..not by tie-ing twice in the same match.

Greatest WC final ever and it was begging for the trophy to be shared. Unfortunately ICC & MCC have always been 5 steps behind the times. No wonder people are saying that cricket is a dying sport...

No one has to defend anything. All this moaning and groaning will be over in a few weeks and people will remember England for winning their maiden World Cup in 2019. This is the biggest moment in the history of white ball cricket in England, and they will not allow moaners to steal their thunder. It is their time in the spotlight and they have deserved it.

Pakistan did not have to defend the 1992 World Cup after all the luck they had, Australia did not have to defend 1999 when Donald produced the biggest individual brain-freeze ever witnessed on a cricket pitch, India do not have to defend Pakistan dropping 100 catches in Mohali etc. etc. You always need some luck to win a tournament in any sport.

However, luck should not be confused with fluke. England did get lucky but they did not fluke this World Cup.

 

[jnaveen1980]

They can keep the cup. IT is a tie match. The result was more like coin toss. England won on a technality not an outright win like other world cup wins.

 

[Mamoon]

By your logic every time there is a tie you need to share the world cup like that you will never get a winner. Cricket will only grow of we witness matches like that as we had a winner at the end of the contest. Imagine a football world cup final and it level after 90 minutes and the teams share the trophy that is absurd. That's why we have penaly shootout in football to decide a winner. So keep your joke of a logic to yourself as Mamoon is spot on here in what he said.

ICC made the no of boundaries rule not ECB. We can debate the merit of the rule all we want, but the fact is that England won according to the rules. No one stopped New Zealand from hitting more boundaries. They were ducking in the last over and didn't show any urgency to put the total beyond England in the last 5 overs.

 

[ak619]

By your logic every time there is a tie you need to share the world cup like that you will never get a winner. Cricket will only grow of we witness matches like that as we had a winner at the end of the contest. Imagine a football world cup final and it level after 90 minutes and the teams share the trophy that is absurd. That's why we have penaly shootout in football to decide a winner. So keep your joke of a logic to yourself as Mamoon is spot on here in what he said.

I will entertain you and your intellect when a FIFA WC final winner is decided by which team had more/less offsides after 90+ mins and 4 rounds of sudden death cannot find a victor.

Understand one thing. A WC final is not a KO match. I repeat, it is not a knock out match. There is no compulsion to declare only 1 team/player as the winner.

The trophy can and should have been shared.

When two sprinters cross the finish line at the same time, the gold is given to both. It's not given to one of them based on how many steps he/she took to reach the finish line, or some other ridiculous criteria.

 

[Mamoon]

They can keep the cup. IT is a tie match. The result was more like coin toss. England won on a technality not an outright win like other world cup wins.

A coin toss is not in your hand, but scoring number of boundaries is. Yes, New Zealand did not know that it will come down to that, but they didn't have intensity with the bat.

They scored 20 in the last 18 balls with 4 wickets in hand, and they were ducking deliveries in the last over. Karma got them, and it got them real good. On the other hand, Bairstow and Roy were continuously looking to find boundaries even when the New Zealand bowlers were on top and swinging and seaming the ball all over the place.

 

[Wahid1234]

ICC made the no of boundaries rule not ECB. We can debate the merit of the rule all we want, but the fact is that England won according to the rules. No one stopped New Zealand from hitting more boundaries. They were ducking in the last over and didn't show any urgency to put the total beyond England in the last 5 overs.

Spot on. The best team won the world cup. End off.

 

[Robert]

England got Ross Taylor descion in their favour, Stokes got in the way and hurt Nz and then finally some stupid rules decide England is the champion when both teams scored same runs and NZ lost few wickets.How is this not fluking a WC.I mean Pakistan in CT17 won all games after losing to India.Here Eng stuttered in the middle of WC,lost to poor teams and umpiring went in their favour.Pak victory is called a fluke and this is not..How is that fair

England won. Deal with it.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

England won. Deal with it.

Would not a tie have been the fairest result?I feel the rules were unfair on boundaries.

 

[Wahid1234]

I will entertain you and your intellect when a FIFA WC final winner is decided by which team had more/less offsides after 90+ mins and 4 rounds of sudden death cannot find a victor.

Understand one thing. A WC final is not a KO match. I repeat, it is not a knock out match. There is no compulsion to declare only 1 team/player as the winner.

The trophy can and should have been shared.

When two sprinters cross the finish line at the same time, the gold is given to both. It's not given to one of them based on how many steps he/she took to reach the finish line, or some other ridiculous criteria.

Your questioning my intellect by basing yours on a two sprinters crossing the finising line. This is a world cup final 11 v 11 not an individual sport where you share the trophy. I re-iterate once again no world cup final trophy should be shared hence why we had a super over to declare a winner and both teams were fully aware of the rules.

And let me correct you a world cup final weather it 's a cricket or football final is a knockout match as one team is knocked of their perch and go home empty handed and one leaves with the trophy. Do you expect both team's to cut the trophy in half and share it lol.

 

[ak619]

However, luck should not be confused with fluke. England did get lucky but they did not fluke this World Cup.

You're absolutely right in saying that England did not fluke their WC campaign. He definitely deserved t be in the final.

But it is an unquestionable truth that they fluked the actual final match and the subsequent victory.

And to prove that I will go back to how you yourself describe "fluke" - something that a team can never pull off in 9 out of 10 occasions.

You and I hopefully have long lives ahead of us. We'll probably witness at least another 500 ODIs before we die. If what we saw yesterday happens in any other cricket match EVER in our lifetime, I will publicly apologize to you here and admit that England's win yesterday was not a fluke.

If it doesn't happen, however, well...you've set the rules yourself.

 

[malakian]

Would not a tie have been the fairest result?I feel the rules were unfair on boundaries.

A tied WC would be an even bigger farce.

England didn't make the rules. The best team won, fair and square.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

England won. Deal with it.

A tie was the fairest result.New Zealand won the hearts of everyone and did not deserve to lose.I commiserate with the Kiwis feeling the rules were unfair and England had great luck with the overthrow and the catch dropped at the conclusion.Above all I salute the Kiwi sportsmanship.

However remember how lucky the Kiwis were to make it into the semi-final stage staving of defeat by a margin of a whisker against West Indies ,narrowly beating South Africa,wining a technical point against India and even being beaten by Pakistan.England were without doubt the best ODI side in the world in the last 4 years even if India was more talented.We must complement England overall for staging such a magnificient ressurection in ODI cricket like a phoenix from the Ashes .They also outplayed the Kiwis in the league match.It is also unlikely the Kiwis would have beaten India had the Indian innings not been posted to the next day and rain intervened .New Zealand also had the fortune of not batting second in the semi-final and final.

No doubt considering they were the dark horses and their superlative improvement New Zealand could be the moral winners of the final.However If you balance it with their inabilty to chase scores,conditions and performance in league then arguably England deserved the title.Above all England have not made a world cup semi-final for 27 years being the founders of the game let alone ODI cricket.

In this edition in the league stage India were possibly the best team but fell out on temperament which the Englishman and Kiwis displayed.

 

[ak619]

A tied WC would be an even bigger farce.

England didn't make the rules. The best team won, fair and square.

Nobody is saying England didn't deserve to win. People are saying that NZ didn't deserve to lose. There's a big difference.

A shared win would have been the best and fairest outcome yesterday after the super over ended in a tie.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

[MENTION=149705]Mean&Green[/MENTION] [MENTION=134359]Cricket lover 27[/MENTION]

To say that this English team didn't disprove the notion that they are bottlers and mental midgets is one of the most ridiculous assessment anyone can make. Frankly, it is simply disingenuous.

What England have done in this World Cup after the Australia match at Lord's speaks volumes of the character of this team. The way they came out all guns blazing against India's best bowling attack in the tournament was an early sign of how this team is not fazed by anything. They could have easily gone into their shell and tried to play safe cricket, but they stamped their authority and took the Indian attack to the cleaners like no team had in the tournament.

They also followed it up with the terrific burst against the New Zealand pace attack that has proved to be extremely formidable and difficult to dominate.

Then they followed it up with perhaps the performance of the tournament against Australia in the semi-finals. All this talk of Australia's formidable record in knockouts, their ability to handle pressure and how ruthless they were etc. blew into a million pieces - the lions ravaged the kangaroos from limb to limb.

The final is a story in itself. England had their ups and downs, but they way came at New Zealand again and again showed the desire and the hunger of this champion team.

They asserted pressure over New Zealand after they looked like getting a big total at 80/1 in 18 overs, Roy and Bairstow kept attacking Henry and Boult even they were being dominated, they way Stokes and Buttler strung together the defining partnership when England were reduced to 80/4, the way Stokes batted with the tail and hit an incredibly clutch six over deep mid-wicket in the final over after playing two dots,

Buttler getting a crucial boundary on the last ball of the super-over, Archer holding his nerve after getting hit for a six on a poor delivery, England's fielding in the deep (apart from one instance) where a slightest error would have cost them the World Cup, the quick pickup and the throw on the final ball, Buttler's flawless collection and presence of mind to save a second by hitting the stumps with one glove instead of two are some of the many moments in the final that proved this England side is not bottle job.

Calling them mental midgets after the emotions they have displayed and the moments they have produced in this World Cup is pure drivel. This is one of the must clutch teams in ODI cricket history and this glory will spur them to greater heights.

Were not the rules unfair and on basis of performance a tie the fairest result?Did not Kiwis rise like a phoenix from the Ashes and England lucky in the closing stages|?Was not India and Australia virtually on par if not better in the league stage?

 

[Mamoon]

You're absolutely right in saying that England did not fluke their WC campaign. He definitely deserved t be in the final.

But it is an unquestionable truth that they fluked the actual final match and the subsequent victory.

And to prove that I will go back to how you yourself describe "fluke" - something that a team can never pull off in 9 out of 10 occasions.

You and I hopefully have long lives ahead of us. We'll probably witness at least another 500 ODIs before we die. If what we saw yesterday happens in any other cricket match EVER in our lifetime, I will publicly apologize to you here and admit that England's win yesterday was not a fluke.

If it doesn't happen, however, well...you've set the rules yourself.

The final was not a fluke either because England would beat New Zealand more often than not. As far as the final over is concerned, Stokes is highly capable of scoring 15 in 6. He even hit a 6 on the ball before the overthrow, which changed the equation to 3 in 2.

As a result, Stokes didn't go for a boundary in the last two balls because he wanted to do is sensibly by picking the gaps. Without the overthrow, England would have needed 7 in 2, because had taken two runs on the overthrow ball. Maybe Stokes would have hit another 6 and tied the game, who knows.

Because of these reasons, I don't consider this a fluke. England are a better than than New Zealand and if there is one team and one batsman that can get you 15 in 6, it is Stokes.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

England had luck that is clear. But I am a big believer you make your own luck in sport. England have prepared and selected the right players for LO finally. They played convincingly in bilaterals and since the Sri Lanka defeat.

I wanted NZ to win. But I have to admit that in the England got the luck which there preparation deserved. Which ever team win would have earned it.

This is my opinion. Other posters can be bitter . That is fine. But I don't see a point in being bitter. England won. No amount of complaining will change that.

good post. well analysed and expressed.

 

[Robert]

Would not a tie have been the fairest result?I feel the rules were unfair on boundaries.

The Kiwis knew the rule and could have hit more boundaries at the death. They had wickets in hand.

 

[ak619]

The final was not a fluke either because England would beat New Zealand more often than not. As far as the final over is concerned, Stokes is highly capable of scoring 15 in 6. He even hit a 6 on the ball before the overthrow, which changed the equation to 3 in 2.

As a result, Stokes didn't go for a boundary in the last two balls because he wanted to do is sensibly by picking the gaps. Without the overthrow, England would have needed 7 in 2, because had taken two runs on the overthrow ball. Maybe Stokes would have hit another 6 and tied the game, who knows.

Because of these reasons, I don't consider this a fluke. England are a better than than New Zealand and if there is one team and one batsman that can get you 15 in 6, it is Stokes.

Everything you said is conjecture and I'm sure that you being the man of science that you are know that logic is not based on conjecture.

Btw let me make this very clear - England deserve to have their name on that cup. As long as NZ had their name on it too. Sharing the WC doesn't mean that it counts as half a WC. It still counts as one WC and would have been the true reflection of the game that we saw in the final.

Because guess what, that's exactly what we witnessed yesterday. We didn't see one winner and one loser yesterday. We saw two champion teams that were inseparable even after 102 overs of cricket.

If we cannot celebrate that then there's not much we can celebrate in this sport at all.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

[MENTION=149705]Mean&Green[/MENTION] [MENTION=134359]Cricket lover 27[/MENTION]

To say that this English team didn't disprove the notion that they are bottlers and mental midgets is one of the most ridiculous assessment anyone can make. Frankly, it is simply disingenuous.

What England have done in this World Cup after the Australia match at Lord's speaks volumes of the character of this team. The way they came out all guns blazing against India's best bowling attack in the tournament was an early sign of how this team is not fazed by anything. They could have easily gone into their shell and tried to play safe cricket, but they stamped their authority and took the Indian attack to the cleaners like no team had in the tournament.

They also followed it up with the terrific burst against the New Zealand pace attack that has proved to be extremely formidable and difficult to dominate.

Then they followed it up with perhaps the performance of the tournament against Australia in the semi-finals. All this talk of Australia's formidable record in knockouts, their ability to handle pressure and how ruthless they were etc. blew into a million pieces - the lions ravaged the kangaroos from limb to limb.

The final is a story in itself. England had their ups and downs, but they way came at New Zealand again and again showed the desire and the hunger of this champion team.

They asserted pressure over New Zealand after they looked like getting a big total at 80/1 in 18 overs, Roy and Bairstow kept attacking Henry and Boult even they were being dominated, they way Stokes and Buttler strung together the defining partnership when England were reduced to 80/4, the way Stokes batted with the tail and hit an incredibly clutch six over deep mid-wicket in the final over after playing two dots,

Buttler getting a crucial boundary on the last ball of the super-over, Archer holding his nerve after getting hit for a six on a poor delivery, England's fielding in the deep (apart from one instance) where a slightest error would have cost them the World Cup, the quick pickup and the throw on the final ball, Buttler's flawless collection and presence of mind to save a second by hitting the stumps with one glove instead of two are some of the many moments in the final that proved this England side is not bottle job.

Calling them mental midgets after the emotions they have displayed and the moments they have produced in this World Cup is pure drivel. This is one of the must clutch teams in ODI cricket history and this glory will spur them to greater heights.

A very good post.

Even as an Englishman I would not have liked to win in this manner.The boundaries rule has no credibility and a tie was the fairest result.New Zealand rose like a phoenix from the Ashes being dark horses and in that light were the morale winners.However never forget that overall England has overshadowed New Zealand being the best and most consistent ODI side in the world in the last 4 years and even outplayed them in the league stage both against other countries and them. Remember the luck the Kiwis had to scrape through to the league stages winning a technical point against India and within a whisker of being beaten by West Indies or even South Africa.England at its best justified its ranking in the league stage as one of the top teams.

No doubt England had a narrow escape on the day with the dropped catch and deflection which cost 10 runs.New Zealand proved that it was no fluke that they qualified in the semi-final and final.However remember the Kiwis were likely to have lost had they chased in both their final games with conditions suiting their team.Even had Kiwis won it would have been by the slenderest of margins and one must complement England for displaying such tenacity or mental resilience to recover from 84-4 to 194 04 on a most difficult track.The inability to hit the final nails in the coffin under pressure or put the final icing on the cake on pure merit goes against England.

I feel a criteria could have been which team finished ahead in the league stage or beat each other in a tie

 

[Cricket lover 27]

The ICC did not have the "neutral pitch" fever when India and Australia were playing on home pitches in 2011 and 2015. Even Pakistan/Sri Lanka (2011) and New Zealand (2015) benefited from home style pitches.

The India and Pakistan quarter-finals in 2011 were farcical. Other than forcibly telling Australia and West Indies to lose, they tried everything within their powers to ensure an India vs Pakistan blockbuster semi-final. They prepared turning wickets in Ahmedabad and Dhaka to give massive advantage to India and Pakistan.

The 2015 World Cup was geared for the two host nations to play in the final. Australia got proper home pitches throughout the World Cup and so did New Zealand. The only time they played in each other's homes, they got exposed.

Since the ICC wanted an Australia vs New Zealand final, they gave India a bouncy pitch in the SF and Johnson bounced Kohli out. On the other hand, New Zealand got a typical New Zealand pitch on their tiny ground where McCullum's bling slogging was very effective.

In this World Cup, the pitch for the Sri Lankan game was a joke. Yes England should have still won, but the ICC ensured that they didn't have any home advantage. Also, the injury to Roy did not help.

So to say ICC deliberately doctors pitches so certain teams can progress. No wonder when England was on the verge of being knocked out they got flattest of pitches in their next games.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

The Kiwis knew the rule and could have hit more boundaries at the death. They had wickets in hand.

Even as an Englishman I would not have liked to win in this manner.The boundaries rule has no credibility and a tie was the fairest result.New Zealand rose like a phoenix from the Ashes being dark horses and in that light were the morale winners.However never forget that overall England has overshadowed New Zealand being the best and most consistent ODI side in the world in the last 4 years and even outplayed them in the league stage both against other countries and them. Remember the luck the Kiwis had to scrape through to the league stages winning a technical point against India and within a whisker of being beaten by West Indies or even South Africa.England at its best justified its ranking in the league stage as one of the top teams.

No doubt England had a narrow escape on the day with the dropped catch and deflection which cost 10 runs.New Zealand proved that it was no fluke that they qualified in the semi-final and final.However remember the Kiwis were likely to have lost had they chased in both their final games with conditions suiting their team.Even had Kiwis won it would have been by the slenderest of margins and one must complement England for displaying such tenacity or mental resilience to recover from 84-4 to 194 04 on a most difficult track.The inability to hit the final nails in the coffin under pressure or put the final icing on the cake on pure merit goes against England.

I feel a criteria could have been which team finished ahead in the league stage or beat each other in a tie

 

[Harsh Thakor]

In a way it is sad that such a prolonged or intense debate is taking place on the result of one of not only cricket's but sport's greatest epics.Morally there was no winner and cricket and sport won one of it's most glorious victories.No game ever in a world cup had so many twists and turns but for the 1999 South Africa-Australia semi-final.Above all sportsmanship was displayed at its highest zenith or spirit which is another victory for cricket and sport.I have never seen a team as sporting as the Kiwis or a captain like Kane Willamson taking defeat in such a stride and with such grace.It was like a ressurection of the days of the golden age when cricket was a gentleman's game.We would rarely witness such sportsmanship in an Asian team while Australia were exactly the oposite.

Instead of revelling in such a debate on the merit of victory we should revel on game that wrote a new chapter or epoch in cricket illustrating how the game is one of glorious uncertainty to perfection.I was present for the whole final and feel it is one day I will have in an entire lifetime.

It is cricket and sport that won yesterday .

 

[The_Odd_One]

First of all Congratulations to England on winning the world cup (despite failing to win the final). They were the best team in this tournament and deserved to lift the trophy more than New Zealand.

Let's not forget that New Zealand were in the finals due to their good luck in the first place. Their group stage match with India was washed out and they were thrashed by both Australia and England in group matches. Even, in the semi-final with India, rain favored them. India had the momentum that day and they would have likely chased down the target if they were allowed to bat. Now talking about the final, New Zealand should have won it in the super-over. There is no excuse for not chasing 3 runs of the last 2 balls. Their fate was in their own hands.

Let's not blame England here. They did not make the rules. The rules were same for both teams. There is no doubt that England got incredibly lucky in the final. This will easily go down as the worst world cup win in the entire history of Cricket with a lot of question marks. The so-called "clutch" team with a power packed batting unit should have been able to chase down 242 easily. England should not have been in this situation to begin with. Then, they needed runs from an overthrow to tie the match. They could not win the super-over tie-breaker either and the most absurd boundaries rule had to be used to hand over the trophy to them.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

The biggest fluke in the history of sports..

How the hell that bat of God worked in Ben Stokes favour and went for four.. This is farcical.. There is nothing unfortunate in cricket than this.. Absolutely nothing.. Then the super over also got tied out.. Oh, what else you do to win a match..

Hitting more boundaries is absolutely illogical. Nobody plays cricket that way. Yes, England deserved to win the WC but I am sorry, if you are England fan, you don't want to win this way.

Even as an Englishman I would not have liked to win in this manner.The boundaries rule has no credibility and a tie was the fairest result.New Zealand rose like a phoenix from the Ashes being dark horses and in that light were the morale winners.However never forget that overall England has overshadowed New Zealand being the best and most consistent ODI side in the world in the last 4 years and even outplayed them in the league stage both against other countries and them. Remember the luck the Kiwis had to scrape through to the league stages winning a technical point against India and within a whisker of being beaten by West Indies or even South Africa.England at its best justified its ranking in the league stage as one of the top teams.

No doubt England had a narrow escape on the day with the dropped catch and deflection which cost 10 runs.New Zealand proved that it was no fluke that they qualified in the semi-final and final.However remember the Kiwis were likely to have lost had they chased in both their final games with conditions suiting their team.Even had Kiwis won it would have been by the slenderest of margins and one must complement England for displaying such tenacity or mental resilience to recover from 84-4 to 194 04 on a most difficult track.The inability to hit the final nails in the coffin under pressure or put the final icing on the cake on pure merit goes against England.

I feel a criteria could have been which team finished ahead in the league stage or beat each other in a tie.

 

[cririri]

The fluke stuff from most here is directed at Mamoon, he's a hypocrite because he calls all of Pakistan's big wins flukes (including the CT, which they won comprehensively). Yet this England win in which they had a lot of fortune he's downplaying.

It wasn't fluke,it was skills and planning,england have groomed and played many big hitters in theses last four years because of boundaries' count.
Atg planning.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

The biggest fluke in the history of sports..

How the hell that bat of God worked in Ben Stokes favour and went for four.. This is farcical.. There is nothing unfortunate in cricket than this.. Absolutely nothing.. Then the super over also got tied out.. Oh, what else you do to win a match..

Hitting more boundaries is absolutely illogical. Nobody plays cricket that way. Yes, England deserved to win the WC but I am sorry, if you are England fan, you don't want to win this way.

A tie was the fairest result.New Zealand won the hearts of everyone and did not deserve to lose.I commiserate with the Kiwis feeling the rules were unfair and England had great luck with the overthrow and the catch dropped at the conclusion.Above all I salute the Kiwi sportsmanship.

However remember how lucky the Kiwis were to make it into the semi-final stage staving of defeat by a margin of a whisker against West Indies ,narrowly beating South Africa,wining a technical point against India and even being beaten by Pakistan.England were without doubt the best ODI side in the world in the last 4 years even if India was more talented.We must complement England overall for staging such a magnificient ressurection in ODI cricket like a phoenix from the Ashes .They also outplayed the Kiwis in the league match.It is also unlikely the Kiwis would have beaten India had the Indian innings not been posted to the next day and rain intervened .New Zealand also had the fortune of not batting second in the semi-final and final.

No doubt considering they were the dark horses and their superlative improvement New Zealand could be the moral winners of the final.However If you balance it with their inabilty to chase scores,conditions and performance in league then arguably England deserved the title.Above all England have not made a world cup semi-final for 27 years being the founders of the game let alone ODI cricket.

In this edition in the league stage India were possibly the best team but fell out on temperament which the Englishman and Kiwis displayed.

 

[Cricket lover 27]

The Kiwis knew the rule and could have hit more boundaries at the death. They had wickets in hand.

Did Kiwis know that the game would end up in a tie? Teams just look to score whether by boundaries, singles or doubles.

By the way I have nothing against England but as a neutral the way this final panned out leaves a lot of questions to be answered and I sure hope some rules to change.

 

[The_Odd_One]

The ICC did not have the "neutral pitch" fever when India and Australia were playing on home pitches in 2011 and 2015. Even Pakistan/Sri Lanka (2011) and New Zealand (2015) benefited from home style pitches.

The India and Pakistan quarter-finals in 2011 were farcical. Other than forcibly telling Australia and West Indies to lose, they tried everything within their powers to ensure an India vs Pakistan blockbuster semi-final. They prepared turning wickets in Ahmedabad and Dhaka to give massive advantage to India and Pakistan.

The 2015 World Cup was geared for the two host nations to play in the final. Australia got proper home pitches throughout the World Cup and so did New Zealand. The only time they played in each other's homes, they got exposed.

Since the ICC wanted an Australia vs New Zealand final, they gave India a bouncy pitch in the SF and Johnson bounced Kohli out. On the other hand, New Zealand got a typical New Zealand pitch on their tiny ground where McCullum's bling slogging was very effective.

In this World Cup, the pitch for the Sri Lankan game was a joke. Yes England should have still won, but the ICC ensured that they didn't have any home advantage. Also, the injury to Roy did not help.

In 2011, India played a semi-final with Pakistan and final with Sri Lanka, teams with very strong spin bowling units. India still won both games without relying on the absurd boundaries rule. They could not enjoy any home advantage because the other two top contenders for the world cup were also relying on their spin bowling strength.

New Zealand would have lost the semi-final easily to South Africa had rain not arrived. No amount of blind slogging would have chased down the total that South Africa were about to set. South Africa were robbed that day by rain and not by the pitch.

Both Sharma and Kohli have scored plenty of runs in Australia on similar pitches. Rather than blaming Australia, let's just accept that Indian top order bottles in world cup knockouts. They choked in 2015 WC, 2017 CT, and now in 2019 WC.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

Biggest fluke in the history of the sport that will never be matched again [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION]

A tie was the fairest result.New Zealand won the hearts of everyone and did not deserve to lose.I commiserate with the Kiwis feeling the rules were unfair and England had great luck with the overthrow and the catch dropped at the conclusion.Above all I salute the Kiwi sportsmanship.

However remember how lucky the Kiwis were to make it into the semi-final stage staving of defeat by a margin of a whisker against West Indies ,narrowly beating South Africa,wining a technical point against India and even being beaten by Pakistan.England were without doubt the best ODI side in the world in the last 4 years even if India was more talented.We must complement England overall for staging such a magnificient ressurection in ODI cricket like a phoenix from the Ashes .They also outplayed the Kiwis in the league match.It is also unlikely the Kiwis would have beaten India had the Indian innings not been posted to the next day and rain intervened .New Zealand also had the fortune of not batting second in the semi-final and final.

No doubt considering they were the dark horses and their superlative improvement New Zealand could be the moral winners of the final.However If you balance it with their inabilty to chase scores,conditions and performance in league then arguably England deserved the title.Above all England have not made a world cup semi-final for 27 years being the founders of the game let alone ODI cricket.

In this edition in the league stage India were possibly the best team but fell out on temperament which the Englishman and Kiwis displayed.