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

[Harsh Thakor]

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.

However is sport only about technicality and not about moral performance or merit?

 

[Imran's Tiger]

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.

I don't think anyone denies the sentiment that cricket was the ultimate winner. I feel the point of contention for most people is the sour taste left by the incompetency of the officials. It's the biggest showcase event for the game and there were no measures set in place if hypothetically a situation were to arise that required detailed knowledge of the rulebook. Simon Taufel being a former umpire knew the rules and between the two onfield umpires, the third umpire and the match referee no one did! This is not to say Ben Stokes would still not have won it for England if only 5 runs were awarded rather than 6 but New Zealand deserved the fair application of the law if it were to be invoked.

As for the match being awarded to England based on boundaries was fair. The rule itself is ludicrous (same as the rain rule in 92) but maybe these things make more sense on paper rather than practice where inevitably Murphy's law has a say. The rule was set in place before the tournament and even if it has been shown up to be ineffective it was agreed upon and both teams were aware of it and if not should have been.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=149166]Technics 1210[/MENTION]

Sorry for interrupting your fetish for having the last word but, can you please point me to the posts where I have claimed that India is a bigger favorite than England?

As far as I remember, I put both of them on equal footing and expected them to meet in the final which would have been 50-50.

This isn’t a trick question - I am genuinely want to know.

 

[Technics 1210]

Every poster who says *they knew the rules* needs to stop lying and watch the final moments of the game again. The coaches, captains, bowlers, officials were all in a huddle because the Umpires were EXPLAINING the rules, and stop pretending you knew the rules either. Neither did the commentators.

No one is saying England did not deserve to win the World Cup, but what is in question is HOW England won the WC final.

You want to know how tie breakers are decided? Go watch the replay of yesterday's Tennis final. Go watch the sudden death penalty shoot out in 1996 Euro semi finals.

So lets save the *this is a good advert for Cricket* nonsense, because it isn't. Deciding a WC winner based on the number of boundaries is not only an insult to the game, but a complete mockery of sport in general.

 

[Technics 1210]

[MENTION=149166]Technics 1210[/MENTION]

Sorry for interrupting your fetish for having the last word but, can you please point me to the posts where I have claimed that India is a bigger favorite than England?

As far as I remember, I put both of them on equal footing and expected them to meet in the final which would have been 50-50.

This isn’t a trick question - I am genuinely want to know.

Well you are an Indian, so India was your favourite to win the WC.

As far as you remember, you keep changing your opinion based on the results of the WC.

I see you are now repeating this last word nonsense. Don't the damage is done. You fluke with your predictions, and your logic destroyed. But if you are happy to come back for more, be my guest, otherwise, stay happy with your Headlines and Highlights analysis.

 

[aloo paratha]

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.

It's not the England win that is irking me, it is the fashion in which they won. I know they didn't do anything wrong and I'm not blaming them, the rules were in place, it is those rules that I disagree with. Had England won easily like Australia did in 2015 I obviously wouldn't like it but I wouldn't be complaining. Honestly even if the teams were switched around here I'd feel bad for England. Nobody should lose a World Cup on a stupid tie breaker like boundaries. It's like NZ didn't lose the match but they lost the cup.

Anyways nothing can be done now. Kiwis should feel good about themselves. Some freak luck stood between them and the cup and it just wasn't meant to be. You can not come closer to a world cup without winning it.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

It was a fluke in fairness. People moaned about the old format letting crap teams into the knockouts but both finalists here lost three group games so that argument isn't holding up very well.

Fact is had Boult thrown the catch back New Zealand win. Had the throw not hit Stokes' bat New Zealand win. Had it hit his bat and not went for four NZ win. Had the umpires applied the law correctly NZ win. Had the old super over tiebreak rules been kept NZ win. It's not just one piece of luck, its about six.

That being said that is sport and it goes for and against you so take nothing away from England. Stokes in particular, after 2016, that took some balls you know. I despise the English media and the like sof Vaughan/KP spouting endless rubbish but tbf the England side themselves are fairly likeable.

Dont feel often for neutral sides but man, [MENTION=132954]Aman[/MENTION] [MENTION=95766]leatherface58[/MENTION] [MENTION=131138]Space Cat[/MENTION] genuinely hard not to feel for you guys, especially given the similarities between ourselves and ye. Had that happened to Ireland in say a WC Qualifier final I'd have been absolutely disconsolate and walked away from cricket for a long time. Awful awful misfortune. What a team NZ are and what gutsy players the likes of Williamson and Neesham are.

 

[cricketAXEpert]

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

No team actually won the final. The trophy should have been shared.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Every poster who says *they knew the rules* needs to stop lying and watch the final moments of the game again. The coaches, captains, bowlers, officials were all in a huddle because the Umpires were EXPLAINING the rules, and stop pretending you knew the rules either. Neither did the commentators.

No one is saying England did not deserve to win the World Cup, but what is in question is HOW England won the WC final.

You want to know how tie breakers are decided? Go watch the replay of yesterday's Tennis final. Go watch the sudden death penalty shoot out in 1996 Euro semi finals.

So lets save the *this is a good advert for Cricket* nonsense, because it isn't. Deciding a WC winner based on the number of boundaries is not only an insult to the game, but a complete mockery of sport in general.

I wouldnt quite go as far as you bit its definitely clear no thought was put into it. If anything scoring 240 with 16 boundaries takes way more skill than 240 with 24.

I dont consider it a mockery because ultimately the law was applied to both teams. It definitely should be changed but its just incredible misfortune that it came down to this tiny tiny margin.

Honestly I'm still in disbelief at what happened. From Woakes' dismissal onwards it just seems as if absolutely everything that could screw NZ over screwed them over. Like 6 times. Amazing to watch as a neutral though.

And morons like Aakash Chopra and co want LESS knock outs. Christ almighty

 

[Mamoon]

Well you are an Indian, so India was your favourite to win the WC.

As far as you remember, you keep changing your opinion based on the results of the WC.

I see you are now repeating this last word nonsense. Don't the damage is done. You fluke with your predictions, and your logic destroyed. But if you are happy to come back for more, be my guest, otherwise, stay happy with your Headlines and Highlights analysis.

Can you please show me the posts where I have called India a bigger favorite than England?

 

[Syed1]

Greatest. Fluke. Ever.

 

[Technics 1210]

I wouldnt quite go as far as you bit its definitely clear no thought was put into it. If anything scoring 240 with 16 boundaries takes way more skill than 240 with 24.

I dont consider it a mockery because ultimately the law was applied to both teams. It definitely should be changed but its just incredible misfortune that it came down to this tiny tiny margin.

Honestly I'm still in disbelief at what happened. From Woakes' dismissal onwards it just seems as if absolutely everything that could screw NZ over screwed them over. Like 6 times. Amazing to watch as a neutral though.

And morons like Aakash Chopra and co want LESS knock outs. Christ almighty

The reason why I believe the law and how the result was determined amount to a mockery is because cricket is about runs and wickets - not boundaries.

 

[Hasan123]

It's not the England win that is irking me, it is the fashion in which they won. I know they didn't do anything wrong and I'm not blaming them, the rules were in place, it is those rules that I disagree with. Had England won easily like Australia did in 2015 I obviously wouldn't like it but I wouldn't be complaining. Honestly even if the teams were switched around here I'd feel bad for England. Nobody should lose a World Cup on a stupid tie breaker like boundaries. It's like NZ didn't lose the match but they lost the cup.

Anyways nothing can be done now. Kiwis should feel good about themselves. Some freak luck stood between them and the cup and it just wasn't meant to be. You can not come closer to a world cup without winning it.

New Zealand didn't have luck in the final but they had some luck to get to the final in the first place and as much as you don't like England, they did have some unlucky things through the tournament. In the end , maybe it evened itself out.

Really would have been nice for NZ to win though.

 

[KingKhanWC]

They obviously thought batsmen had crossed before the throw . It was a poor throw & poor backing up & poor not to question it by kiwis .

This is no different to marginal wide calls , no ball calls or short runs given etc . It’s part of cricket so you must win convincingly .

Besides England would have played differently if 5 runs were awarded not 6 .

Time to move on folks . Cricket is home now , where is belongs

 

[andy0204]

They obviously thought batsmen had crossed before the throw . It was a poor throw & poor backing up & poor not to question it by kiwis .

This is no different to marginal wide calls , no ball calls or short runs given etc . It’s part of cricket so you must win convincingly .

Besides England would have played differently if 5 runs were awarded not 6 .

Time to move on folks . Cricket is home now , where is belongs

People will remember this wc as the controversial victory,England deserved it but not in this way.

 

[BDfanforever]

It was a fluke in fairness. People moaned about the old format letting crap teams into the knockouts but both finalists here lost three group games so that argument isn't holding up very well.

Fact is had Boult thrown the catch back New Zealand win. Had the throw not hit Stokes' bat New Zealand win. Had it hit his bat and not went for four NZ win. Had the umpires applied the law correctly NZ win. Had the old super over tiebreak rules been kept NZ win. It's not just one piece of luck, its about six.

That being said that is sport and it goes for and against you so take nothing away from England. Stokes in particular, after 2016, that took some balls you know. I despise the English media and the like sof Vaughan/KP spouting endless rubbish but tbf the England side themselves are fairly likeable.

Dont feel often for neutral sides but man, [MENTION=132954]Aman[/MENTION] [MENTION=95766]leatherface58[/MENTION] [MENTION=131138]Space Cat[/MENTION] genuinely hard not to feel for you guys, especially given the similarities between ourselves and ye. Had that happened to Ireland in say a WC Qualifier final I'd have been absolutely disconsolate and walked away from cricket for a long time. Awful awful misfortune. What a team NZ are and what gutsy players the likes of Williamson and Neesham are.

How about the NZ luck in group stage? Kane was literally out against RSA but did not walk, Mushy stumping, Braithwaite six, etc. To top it all rain during semi which made Ind bat during morning in swinging conditions otherwise Jadeja himself would’ve scored paltry 239.

 

[shane]

I think what would have been better is if they had just said that the match was a tie and that, in the event of a tie (and the super over being a tie), the tournament (as opposed to the match) is awarded to the team which, for example, ranked higher in the points table after the group stage.

 

[Technics 1210]

How about the NZ luck in group stage? Kane was literally out against RSA but did not walk, Mushy stumping, Braithwaite six, etc. To top it all rain during semi which made Ind bat during morning in swinging conditions otherwise Jadeja himself would’ve scored paltry 239.

No one denies luck is involved when chasing/setting a score, this is a given, but luck should not be involved when determining a World Cup winner. There is no skill involved when deciding the winner on boundaries.

 

[light]

Though I don't agree with the final result, NZ should have been crowned champs (umpire mistakes cost them), that doesn't mean their WC winner journey was a fluke. If you had watched any sort of English cricket since 2015, you would not even bother asking this question.

 

[BDfanforever]

No one denies luck is involved when chasing/setting a score, this is a given, but luck should not be involved when determining a World Cup winner. There is no skill involved when deciding the winner on boundaries.

Yes. Forget boundaries, that ball hitting Stokes bat then going for boundaries is the most fluke thing ever.

 

[aloo paratha]

New Zealand didn't have luck in the final but they had some luck to get to the final in the first place and as much as you don't like England, they did have some unlucky things through the tournament. In the end , maybe it evened itself out.

Really would have been nice for NZ to win though.

I guess. both teams did what was in their control, both teams made some mistakes, kismat was with England but that doesn't disqualify their win.

 

[Technics 1210]

Yes. Forget boundaries, that ball hitting Stokes bat then going for boundaries is the most fluke thing ever.

Your sarcasm is wasted.

How many games in the history of ODI cricket were decided on the number of boundaries?

This is a rhetorical question meaning no need to answer it.

 

[Ab Fan]

To be fair to England, this can't be called a fluke. In some way, maybe but in terms of exact definition, NO.

<I>Fluke means if one team, 'A' somehow beats the other team 'B' on that day and more often than half of the times, 'B' would beat 'A'. That is fluke win for A.</I>

In yesterday's game, England somehow did beat NZ but more often than half of the times, England would have anyways beaten NZ.

So, I will say on that given day, NZ played better cricket than England yet England fluked it that day. However, on some other day, the chances of England playing better cricket was higher than it is for NZ. Sound strange, but this it is.

 

[Technics 1210]

To be fair to England, this can't be called a fluke. In some way, maybe but in terms of exact definition, NO.

<I>Fluke means if one team, 'A' somehow beats the other team 'B' on that day and more often than half of the times, 'B' would beat 'A'. That is fluke win for A.</I>

In yesterday's game, England somehow did beat NZ but more often than half of the times, England would have anyways beaten NZ.

So, I will say on that given day, NZ played better cricket than England yet England fluked it that day. However, on some other day, the chances of England playing better cricket was higher than it is for NZ. Sound strange, but this it is.

Definition of *Fluke*

1. achieve (something) by luck rather than skill.

Not sure where you got your definition from, though I have an inkling.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Definitely the luckiest win by a team in a world cup final by some distance. Anyway let them enjoy lol. Spent 4 years in developing "new way of batting" and almost succumbed due to "old way of batting" (struggling to achieve 5 run per over lol. That was quiet ironical. They had so much advantage like home ground, lot of flat pitch matches, last minute poaching from West Indies, No rained out matches, Toss win in the must win league matches, Dhoni's incompetence, Bizarre happenings in the final favoring England.

Supposedly favorite huffed and puffed their way to win a world cup eventually.

 

[BDfanforever]

Definitely the luckiest win by a team in a world cup final by some distance. Anyway let them enjoy lol. Spent 4 years in developing "new way of batting" and almost succumbed due to "old way of batting" (struggling to achieve 5 run per over lol. That was quiet ironical. They had so much advantage like home ground, lot of flat pitch matches, last minute poaching from West Indies, No rained out matches, Toss win in the must win league matches, Dhoni's incompetence, Bizarre happenings in the final favoring England.

Supposedly favorite huffed and puffed their way to win a world cup eventually.

And then have the nerve to call all that poaching and snatching diversity lol.

 

[Thephenom]

What’s baffling me is the indifference the English public outside cricket have to England winning, if it had been Pakistan or dare I say it India, the streets would be full of people celebrating and it would be a public holiday the next day!

 

[HitWicket]

Definitely the luckiest win by a team in a world cup final by some distance. Anyway let them enjoy lol. Spent 4 years in developing "new way of batting" and almost succumbed due to "old way of batting" (struggling to achieve 5 run per over lol. That was quiet ironical.

Right, and if they'd gone out there and tried to smack it out the ground from ball 1 on what wasn't a completely flat deck and collapsed you wouldn't be on here right now ridiculing them for doing so. They batted sensbily and adapted, something they've struggled with and had to improve on over the last 4 years.

lot of flat pitch matches

No more than anyone else, added to that the final was far from a flat pitch. Also what happened to win the toss and win the match?

last minute poaching from West Indies

Proud of our multiculturalism and the wide array of backgrounds of British citizens. Added to that the English cricketing system clearly did nothing for lifelong British citizen Archer who moved to England as a teenager unable to get in the WI U19WC Squad and bowling off-spin....

No rained out matches

Only one team had more than a single match rained out. England had a very good chance of qualifying even if a random 2 of their matches had been rained out in the end.

Toss win in the must win league matches

And what about the 2 lost tosses in the knockout games? We won 50% of tosses once the games pretty much all became effective knockouts, exactly what you

Dhoni's incompetence

Having better players than the opposition is luck now?

Supposedly favorite huffed and puffed their way to win a world cup eventually.

Favourites and won the World Cup. Exactly what we wanted.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

How about the NZ luck in group stage? Kane was literally out against RSA but did not walk, Mushy stumping, Braithwaite six, etc. To top it all rain during semi which made Ind bat during morning in swinging conditions otherwise Jadeja himself would’ve scored paltry 239.

All of the things you listed were entirely in the control of the opposition. SA should have reviewed and didnt, Mushfiqur botched a chance under pressure, Brathwaite didnt hit it far enough. Your point on the semi is just hogwash.

I'll accept the Boult catch as being a moment thats purely down to NZ and was entirely in their control. The rest however, not at all, were entirely out of NZ and England's control and they all screwed NZ over.

 

[Ab Fan]

Definition of *Fluke*

1. achieve (something) by luck rather than skill.

Not sure where you got your definition from, though I have an inkling.

It also says,

1. an unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.

On that day, it was England fluking the win. But in general, current England would be more often than not tagged as favourites against current NZ.

 

[Donal Cozzie]

Anyway on a sidenote congrats to the English members here [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION]

Not gonna pretend I wanted ye to win lol but the English team are genuinely a decent bunch and, although I do think the final win was fairly jammy, I'm sure none of ye give a damn and to be honest you shouldnt either. Ultimately ye won and deserve props for that.

 

[James]

Thank you [MENTION=136108]Donal Cozzie[/MENTION]

 

[Captain caveman]

England did not win the game, it was tied!
England was awarded the world cup on boundaries count!
The boundary count is part of the icc tournament rules to decide a winner, however, technically, the rules of cricket are governed by the mcc(marylebone cricket club) and no such rule (boundary count) exists, therefore the game was a tie!!!

 

[HitWicket]

England did not win the game, it was tied!
England was awarded the world cup on boundaries count!
The boundary count is part of the icc tournament rules to decide a winner, however, technically, the rules of cricket are governed by the mcc(marylebone cricket club) and no such rule (boundary count) exists, therefore the game was a tie!!!

The game is played under the laws with the amendments in place by the ICC through their regulations. The tournament regulations state that in this case the team with the higher boundary count shall be declared the winner of the game and therefore of the tournament.

 

[Robert]

Anyway on a sidenote congrats to the English members here [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=139981]HitWicket[/MENTION] [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION]

Not gonna pretend I wanted ye to win lol but the English team are genuinely a decent bunch and, although I do think the final win was fairly jammy, I'm sure none of ye give a damn and to be honest you shouldnt either. Ultimately ye won and deserve props for that.

No need for congrats [MENTION=136108]Donal Cozzie[/MENTION] as I didn’t play in the final.

I agree. The important thing is that England have the trophy after eleven attempts. Arise, Sir Eoin!

 

[Captain caveman]

The game is played under the laws with the amendments in place by the ICC through their regulations. The tournament regulations state that in this case the team with the higher boundary count shall be declared the winner of the game and therefore of the tournament.

Exactly!
The game officially was a tie according to mcc cricket rules, but a win for england under the icc tournament rules!
What part of this don't you understand?

 

[Robert]

And then have the nerve to call all that poaching and snatching diversity lol.

England is the most diverse side in the world, has been going all the way back to Ranji.

 

[Technics 1210]

It also says,

1. an unlikely chance occurrence, especially a surprising piece of luck.

On that day, it was England fluking the win. But in general, current England would be more often than not tagged as favourites against current NZ.

Yes, but Fluke is being used as a verb. England *fluked* to victory.

Still, both the definitions do not fit into the saga you described, because if it did, Australia would have beaten England 9/10 times in the SF, not forgetting the group game, ergo, England fluked into the final.

 

[HitWicket]

Exactly!
The game officially was a tie according to mcc cricket rules, but a win for england under the icc tournament rules!
What part of this don't you understand?

You appear to be having some comprehension issues. We're playing an ICC governed match therefore we are playing by the ICC regulations not by the MCCs laws. The ICC's regulations take inspiration from the laws and use the same numbering system and in many places use the same wording or even refer to the laws but they're a completely different document. By the regulations that were being played under England were the winners of the game and the tournament. There's not much point discussing anything else or rules that the game wasn't being played under.

 

[Technics 1210]

Using boundaries to win is an art perfected by the British since 1947!

 

[Captain caveman]

You appear to be having some comprehension issues. We're playing an ICC governed match therefore we are playing by the ICC regulations not by the MCCs laws. The ICC's regulations take inspiration from the laws and use the same numbering system and in many places use the same wording or even refer to the laws but they're a completely different document. By the regulations that were being played under England were the winners of the game and the tournament. There's not much point discussing anything else or rules that the game wasn't being played under.

You seem to have comphrension issues, i was refering to the technical result under mcc rules, the body that safeguards the rules of cricket!
Yes this was an icc tournament and to decide the tournament winner the icc have made additional rules for the determination of a winner, in case of a tie!
So england won the tournament by the icc tournament rules, but technically, the game under mcc rules was a tie!
Not hard to follow!!

 

[Captain caveman]

The icc can not change the rules for cricket, that is determined by the mcc only.
What the icc can do is set additional tournament rules such as tie breakers, but this is only for deciding tournament winners, the actual result of the match remains a tie according to mcc rules!

 

[andy0204]

honestly i hate england but i think its time to move on and accept it.

 

[HitWicket]

You seem to have comphrension issues, i was refering to the technical result under mcc rules, the body that safeguards the rules of cricket!
Yes this was an icc tournament and to decide the tournament winner the icc have made additional rules for the determination of a winner, in case of a tie!
So england won the tournament by the icc tournament rules, but technically, the game under mcc rules was a tie!
Not hard to follow!!

That's true, but it's also irrelevant given we're not playing under the MCC rules. We're playing under the ICC rules. The MCCs rules have as much a jurisdiction over this as my backyard rules do unless the ICC allow them to have any.

 

[PakHammer]

Watching the highlights on Sky just now as I was abroad yesterday and didn't see the match live.
What struck me was the summary graphic at the end of the match.

New Zealand 241 for 8 wickets after 50 overs.
England 241 all out after 50 overs.

Now after the scores were still level after the super over, surely New Zealand should have won as they lost fewer wickets in the 50 over match? As is that not the whole point of cricket to bowl the other side out, as that is a harder task than hitting some boundaries?
New Zealand will rightfully feel hard done by as the rules were a farce after a tie of scores.

 

[Captain caveman]

That's true, but it's also irrelevant given we're not playing under the MCC rules. We're playing under the ICC rules. The MCCs rules have as much a jurisdiction over this as my backyard rules do unless the ICC allow them to have any.

This is a pointless argument!
I stated a fact - that the match was tied under the internationally recognised rules, governed by the mcc!
But england won the cup according to icc tournament rules!
You took offence to this for some unknown reason.

Forget your bakyard!
Say you are the icc, you can do whatever you like in your house(tournament) as long as you don't break the law of the land(mcc). If you break the law of the land(mcc) will take you to court!
Hope thats clear, because i can't be bother anymore to discuss this issue!!!

 

[Captain caveman]

Basically, the mcc will not allow you to use the term "cricket", if you do not follow the rules they have set. You will have to call your sport something else!
I'm done!!!

 

[Captain caveman]

This is a pointless argument!
I stated a fact - that the match was tied under the internationally recognised rules, governed by the mcc!
But england won the cup according to icc tournament rules!
You took offence to this for some unknown reason.

Forget your bakyard!
Say you are the icc, you can do whatever you like in your house(tournament) as long as you don't break the law of the land(mcc). If you break the law of the land(mcc) will take you to court!
Hope thats clear, because i can't be bother anymore to discuss this issue!!!

*backyard

 

[IMMY69]

The reason why I believe the law and how the result was determined amount to a mockery is because cricket is about runs and wickets - not boundaries.

This here is the crux...

It amazes me that people argue over the 6 or 5 runs, fluke this fluke flat, when the reality is that New Zealand actually won that game because England were all out and the Kiwis lost only 8 wickets...

That there is the game of cricket in a nutshell...

 

[Captain caveman]

This here is the crux...

It amazes me that people argue over the 6 or 5 runs, fluke this fluke flat, when the reality is that New Zealand actually won that game because England were all out and the Kiwis lost only 8 wickets...

That there is the game of cricket in a nutshell...

This is how ties were settled in the good old days before the t20 influence on odis and these stupid super overs, and i refuse to even discuss boundary counts!

 

[sweep_shot]

England definitely got away with one. Lots of things went their way.

I do not want to use the word "fluke" though. England were always favorites to win.

 

[Mamoon]

This here is the crux...

It amazes me that people argue over the 6 or 5 runs, fluke this fluke flat, when the reality is that New Zealand actually won that game because England were all out and the Kiwis lost only 8 wickets...

That there is the game of cricket in a nutshell...

The “reality” is the actual rule, not the rule you or others want to be imposed. It doesn’t matter how things were done in the past or how things should be done today - the only thing that matters is what the actual rule is.

NRR is not the right way to do it because it went against Pakistan.

Number of boundaries is not the right way to do it because it benefited England.

To cut the long story short - rules are just when it benefits Pakistan and costs England.

 

[Robert]

Every poster who says *they knew the rules* needs to stop lying and watch the final moments of the game again. The coaches, captains, bowlers, officials were all in a huddle because the Umpires were EXPLAINING the rules, and stop pretending you knew the rules either. Neither did the commentators.

No one is saying England did not deserve to win the World Cup, but what is in question is HOW England won the WC final.

You want to know how tie breakers are decided? Go watch the replay of yesterday's Tennis final. Go watch the sudden death penalty shoot out in 1996 Euro semi finals.

So lets save the *this is a good advert for Cricket* nonsense, because it isn't. Deciding a WC winner based on the number of boundaries is not only an insult to the game, but a complete mockery of sport in general.

Well is it any more an insult and mockery than doing it on least wickets lost? At least the latter was is historical I suppose, but I t’s just a different arbitrary way to decide in a tie than the one that was used.

 

[Technics 1210]

Well is it any more an insult and mockery than doing it on least wickets lost? At least the latter was is historical I suppose, but I t’s just a different arbitrary way to decide in a tie than the one that was used.

Why arbitrary? This is the point. Wickets/Runs - these are the metrics used to determine a win/loss in Cricket. A tie breaker should be using these metrics one way or another. Though another Superover (sudden death format like penalty shootouts) would have been the preferred option.

The records show England won the world Cup by virtue of scoring more boundaries/boundary count. Doesn't even sound like Cricket. Would have been sweeter it the records had shown England won by x number of runs, even in a super over.

As I said, England are not to blamed here, the ICC are.

 

[Madplayer]

Can a team deserve to win a match before even playing it?

I have been hearing from posters (they know who they are) again and again that England deserved to win the match because of numerous reasons like they were better in previous 4 years, they played better in the tournament, they are a great team, they turned things around completely for themselves by changing their approach etc. Etc.

My question is, does these reasons justify saying that a team deserves to win the match based on what they did in past even before they have set foot inside the ground?

Are such statements fair or unfair towards the opposition who also played well to get to the final?

 

[Pakistanian]

Well their aggressive approach to cricket and the attitude adjustments they made over the past four years made them a more aggressive team and that resulted in them scoring more boundaries which ended up deciding the result.

 

[Mamoon]

It is not unfair because other teams had the opportunity to put themselves in the same position but they didn’t.

England dropped 9 players after the 2015 World Cup, completely changed their playing style, became the number 1 team in the world and even changed their own rules to fast-track a fast bowler because they felt they needed more firepower in bowling.

England did everything they could (or any team can) to win this World Cup. To see them fall short would have been utterly heartbreaking and an insult to all their efforts and hard work.

I now really do believe that they had divine help in the final, it want luck or fluke - it was God rewarding them for there sincere efforts and their desperation to win the World Cup.

No team was more hungry and desperate than England to win the World Cup. They didn’t leave anything to chance.

Others team limped into the tournament as a 6th ranked side praying for miracles, while some ignored their middle-order problems and there were also teams that left their preparation too late etc.

England though covered all the basis and they started their preparation earlier than any team. This is was England’s World Cup because they earned the right.

In spite of the labels of chokers and mental midgets, the resilience these English players showed in this World Cup was nothing but inspirational. They have nerves of steel.

 

[Madplayer]

Well their aggressive approach to cricket and the attitude adjustments they made over the past four years made them a more aggressive team and that resulted in them scoring more boundaries which ended up deciding the result.

Thats not the question.

Some posters were saying the England deserved to win the game even before the match took place. They cited their turn around in last 4 years as the reason. Is this pov correct?

 

[Pakistanian]

Thats not the question.

Some posters were saying the England deserved to win the game even before the match took place. They cited their turn around in last 4 years as the reason. Is this pov correct?

Their work over the past 4 years brought them to this stage, it's that work, the attitude adjustments, the change in approach that resulted in them becoming world champions and the #1 ranked team in the world. So yes England deserved just like how people said the Raptors deserved to be NBA champions cause of the work they put in over the past year plus last summer. This is often said in pro sports, nothing new.

 

[Itachi]

Nope. It doesn't deserve.

Hard work has zero value if not guided properly.

 

[Madplayer]

It is not unfair because other teams had the opportunity to put themselves in the same position but they didn’t.

England dropped 9 players after the 2015 World Cup, completely changed their playing style, became the number 1 team in the world and even changed their own rules to fast-track a fast bowler because they felt they needed more firepower in bowling.

England did everything they could (or any team can) to win this World Cup. To see them fall short would have been utterly heartbreaking and an insult to all their efforts and hard work.

I now really do believe that they had divine help in the final, it want luck or fluke - it was God rewarding them for there sincere efforts and their desperation to win the World Cup.

No team was more hungry and desperate than England to win the World Cup. They didn’t leave anything to chance.

Others team limped into the tournament as a 6th ranked side praying for miracles, while some ignored their middle-order problems and there were also teams that left their preparation too late etc.

England though covered all the basis and they started their preparation earlier than any team. This is was England’s World Cup because they earned the right.

In spite of the labels of chokers and mental midgets, the resilience these English players showed in this World Cup was nothing but inspirational. They have nerves of steel.

Did they deserve to win it before playing the match?

 

[Salma_T]

No team deserves to win before a match
....but somone's form can dictate the likelihood.

 

[Captain caveman]

Not only do some of these posters believe england deserved to win this match before setting foot on the field, some believe they deserved to win the tournament before it had even started and one poster [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] believes that these english players deserved to win this tournament before they were even born, as it was destined by the all mighty!!!

These are the ridiculous excuses made by fans when they know their team has unjustly won a tournament and they have no logical explaination or arguments to disproof that there team won by unjust rules!!

 

[Salma_T]

[MENTION=149691]Captain caveman[/MENTION] again you are stating the won it unjustly.... no they won it as per the rules of cricket

 

[Mamoon]

Did they deserve to win it before playing the match?

Yes, just like they deserved to win the World Cup before a ball was bowled in the World Cup itself.

 

[Mamoon]

Not only do some of these posters believe england deserved to win this match before setting foot on the field, some believe they deserved to win the tournament before it had even started and one poster [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] believes that these english players deserved to win this tournament before they were even born, as it was destined by the all mighty!!!

These are the ridiculous excuses made by fans when they know their team has unjustly won a tournament and they have no logical explaination or arguments to disproof that there team won by unjust rules!!

They deserved nothing before they were born. England got what they deserved in 2015 and they got what they deserved this time. Simple.

Rules are never unjust intrinsically. Only selective application is, and that wasn’t the case here.

 

[Captain caveman]

[MENTION=149691]Captain caveman[/MENTION] again you are stating the won it unjustly.... no they won it as per the rules of cricket

The rules were unjust, no fault of the english players, but wholly the icc's fault!!!

 

[Madplayer]

Yes, just like they deserved to win the World Cup before a ball was bowled in the World Cup itself.

So according to you other teams did nothing in last 4 years?

 

[Captain caveman]

They deserved nothing before they were born. England got what they deserved in 2015 and they got what they deserved this time. Simple.

Rules are never unjust intrinsically. Only selective application is, and that wasn’t the case here.

"Rules are never unjust"!
Therefore, no rule in the history of cricket has ever been changed because it was unjust?

 

[Mamoon]

So according to you other teams did nothing in last 4 years?

No one did as much as England.

Archer is an example that I would like to highlight again.

England’s bowling attack did not stop them from becoming the number 1 team in the world. They helped them win 8 out of 9 ODIs against India and Australia last summer, and 4 out 5 (one match was a washout) this summer.

That is a remarkable record. Most teams in England’s position would have stuck with the “winning combination” mentality, but when England saw an opportunity to improve even further, they took it.

This is what you call intense preparation and covering all basis. This is the mindset that all other teams lacked coming into the World Cup.

 

[Mamoon]

"Rules are never unjust"!
Therefore, no rule in the history of cricket has ever been changed because it was unjust?

Rules are applied by the officials and if they are not selective in application, then they are not unjust.

Of course you can change rules, but that doesn’t mean that they are unjust. There is no question of justice when it applies to both teams.

For that matter, I do believe that boundaries rule in super-over should be changed to simply having an additional super-over. However, that doesn’t mean that New Zealand were screwed over.

No one stopped them from hitting more boundaries than England. They only scored 20 in the last 18 balls even though they had 4 wickets in hand, and Santner was ducking the last delivery of the innings. I think karma got them good.

 

[Captain caveman]

No one did as much as England.

Archer is an example that I would like to highlight again.

England’s bowling attack did not stop them from becoming the number 1 team in the world. They helped them win 8 out of 9 ODIs against India and Australia last summer, and 4 out 5 (one match was a washout) this summer.

That is a remarkable record. Most teams in England’s position would have stuck with the “winning combination” mentality, but when England saw an opportunity to improve even further, they took it.

This is what you call intense preparation and covering all basis. This is the mindset that all other teams lacked coming into the World Cup.

Yes i agree, poaching a world class limited overs bowler from another country(group of countries - WI) is the way to go to win a world cup.
Also pinching a world class pinch hitter(roy) and pinching a captain(morgan) from other countries is also good preparation for winning a world cup!!

 

[Mamoon]

Yes i agree, poaching a world class limited overs bowler from another country(group of countries - WI) is the way to go to win a world cup.
Also pinching a world class pinch hitter(roy) and pinching a captain(morgan) from other countries is also good preparation for winning a world cup!!

Archer’s father is British, Roy has been in England since he was 10, Morgan’s mother is English.

They didn’t steal them from anyone and nor did they poach them. You should credit England for being a welcoming country and giving people fair opportunities who want to make it.

 

[Ozymandiasza]

Can we get an end to the incessant whining on this forum?

England deserved to win. NZ didn't deserve to lose, and they didn't in my books. After all, this is their second final in as many WCs. They deserve a WC a much as any team.

Truth be told, 'deserve' is an emotional search for a sense, or taste, of justice in the universe. There is actually no such thing.

 

[Salma_T]

Archer’s father is British, Roy has been in England since he was 10, Morgan’s mother is English.

They didn’t steal them from anyone and nor did they poach them. You should credit England for being a welcoming country and giving people fair opportunities who want to make it.

I very rarely agree with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] but how does one steal a 10 yr from South Africa or guy who is half British. In regards to Morgan he was poached as a fully fledged player (he did it for whatever reason but it's not like he is the next big thing and deflected when ODIs were not important)

 

[Madplayer]

No one did as much as England.

Archer is an example that I would like to highlight again.

England’s bowling attack did not stop them from becoming the number 1 team in the world. They helped them win 8 out of 9 ODIs against India and Australia last summer, and 4 out 5 (one match was a washout) this summer.

That is a remarkable record. Most teams in England’s position would have stuck with the “winning combination” mentality, but when England saw an opportunity to improve even further, they took it.

This is what you call intense preparation and covering all basis. This is the mindset that all other teams lacked coming into the World Cup.

But how on earth does any team "deserve" to win even before steping into the field? That doesnt even make sense.

If some lower ranked team like Bangladesh had beaten England, would you say that Bangladesh didnt deserve to win?

 

[Madplayer]

I very rarely agree with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] but how does one steal a 10 yr from South Africa or guy who is half British. In regards to Morgan he was poached as a fully fledged player (he did it for whatever reason but it's not like he is the next big thing and deflected when ODIs were not important)

So are you among the ones who said before the match that kiwis deserve to lose and england deserve to win?

 

[Madplayer]

Can we get an end to the incessant whining on this forum?

England deserved to win. NZ didn't deserve to lose, and they didn't in my books. After all, this is their second final in as many WCs. They deserve a WC a much as any team.

Truth be told, 'deserve' is an emotional search for a sense, or taste, of justice in the universe. There is actually no such thing.

The thread is not about England. England is just being used as an example.

The thread is about people claiming before the match and even before the tournament that a particular team deserves to win it all while others dont deserve it.

 

[Captain caveman]

Archer’s father is British, Roy has been in England since he was 10, Morgan’s mother is English.

They didn’t steal them from anyone and nor did they poach them. You should credit England for being a welcoming country and giving people fair opportunities who want to make it.

Archer, i believe was born and bred in barbados!! Coming to england as an adult.
Hardly makes him english, though he may be a british citizen due to his father being british or by naturalisation. But he learnt his cricket in barbados, not england, so he should be ineglible to play for england!!
This is the excuse people use for ben stokes, that he came to england as a child and learnt his cricket in england, not new zealand and you also make a similar claim for roy! You can't have it both ways!!

Morgan played for ireland!!
No way should he have been allowed to play for a second international country, thats just a joke. So all associate teams watch out your best players are fair game for bigger, wealthier cricket nations, according to this!

 

[Captain caveman]

I very rarely agree with [MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] but how does one steal a 10 yr from South Africa or guy who is half British. In regards to Morgan he was poached as a fully fledged player (he did it for whatever reason but it's not like he is the next big thing and deflected when ODIs were not important)

With regards to archer, he was a WI player at the under 19's level. He didn't get selected for the under 19s world cup for the WI team and was disgruntled. England then took the opportunity to poach him from the WI by offering him the chance to play for england. You can say that its WI's fault for not selecting archer in the under 19s world cup, but they deemed other players to be better than him. However, they had invested in his development and training and he was a part of their youth team set up, and england 'poached" him and deprived WI of a return for their investment!