NZ 241/8 and ENG 241/10 - But still Super Over?

[Manager101]

England were allout, but still they went for super over ?

I mean, how more dumber can cricket can get. Ridiculous stuff tbh.

Sorry to say but after watching this sports for more then 20 years, its time to say farewell to it, from my side atleast.

 

[aloo paratha]

Runs are runs, regardless of if you got them from boundaries

With that same argument, runs are runs whether you made them 1 wicket down or 9 wickets down.

Simplest and best solution was to have another super over.

 

[ritzy_123]

Runs are runs, regardless of if you got them from boundaries

With that same argument, runs are runs whether you made them 1 wicket down or 9 wickets down.

Simplest and best solution was to have another super over.

Exactly unfair to NZ..!!

 

[Aman]

Boundaries over wickets is absurd..

 

[Ashraful_Rox]

Feel sorry for the kiwis, but Atleast we have a new champion.

 

[Ab Fan]

It's rules, what can u do with this..

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

Exactly really stupid..

 

[dhump]

This rule is so horrible and sadly ruined some 40 odd days of cricket for me.

I am disgusted by ICC as a neutral today I feel unfortunate for the players.

 

[Captain caveman]

England were allout, but still they went for super over ?

I mean, how more dumber can cricket can get. Ridiculous stuff tbh.

Sorry to say but after watching this sports for more then 20 years, its time to say farewell to it, from my side atleast.

I feel exactly the same!!
If what happened to NZ had happened to pakistan, i would be FUMING!!!

 

[Manager101]

How can a team that got allout be allowed to play any extra (super) over. It should be null and void when a particular team has no wickets left. England were literally "Allout"

 

[Titan24]

Runs are runs, regardless of if you got them from boundaries

With that same argument, runs are runs whether you made them 1 wicket down or 9 wickets down.

Simplest and best solution was to have another super over.

Runs per wicket would be different if you make them 1 wicket down or 9 wickets down. It was a decent rule to follow in case of a tie however ICC changed the rules for this WC.

 

[Boi]

Cricket really comes out with the dumbest rules ever.

 

[Aman]

How can a team that got allout be allowed to play any extra (super) over. It should be null and void when a particular team has no wickets left. England were literally "Allout"

Exactly, these rules are conical.

England didn't deserve to win today.

 

[dhump]

How can a team that got allout be allowed to play any extra (super) over. It should be null and void when a particular team has no wickets left. England were literally "Allout"

This exactly this.

 

[faizanj]

Some of the rules are not fair in cricket but they were not made today. Both the teams knew them before the game.

 

[SensiblePakFan]

Sad.

 

[Hasan123]

The rule is pathetic. But no one would be complaining if it benefited NZ. That is the problem with PP, you only bring such stuff up when it goes against us. Never saw any of these complaints before the tournament when the rule was in place.

 

[DRsohail]

Exactly, these rules are conical.

England didn't deserve to win today.

Most of us and Pakistani fans were supporting kiwis but disappointed at the end, by the way why Guptill in last over?CDG??

 

[aloo paratha]

ICC needs a good look at themselves in the mirror and reflect on the big mistakes they've mad in this World Cup. No plan for rain, retardedd rules to deem the winner. Pathetic.

 

[Junaids]

Stupid rule.

I’m English, but I feel embarrassed that we won due to a blatantly unfair rule.

 

[Aman]

It cannot possibly get worse as a NZ fan.

How can you compare anything in this sport again after losing a WC on boundaries.

It's not fair

 

[Green Patriot]

I believe that it should have been a shared trophy.

 

[Green Patriot]

It cannot possibly get worse as a NZ fan.

How can you compare anything in this sport again after losing a WC on boundaries.

It's not fair

I am so incredibly gutted and sorry for you.
Deepest commiserations.You and the other NZ fans did not deserve this.A most terrible outcome and i can assure you that it will always be talked about.No team wants to win like this.Such an unsatisfying victory for England too.

 

[ElRaja]

i can understand why nz fans would be annoyed, but the rules are the same for both teams, and nz should be the last ones to complain about illogical rules when the qualified over pak on nrr despite losing to pak.

the rules are the rules, no one made an issue before this match so whats the point now?

 

[Pakistanian]

These rules have been around for awhile so stop whining.

 

[Aman]

i can understand why nz fans would be annoyed, but the rules are the same for both teams, and nz should be the last ones to complain about illogical rules when the qualified over pak on nrr despite losing to pak.

the rules are the rules, no one made an issue before this match so whats the point now?

NRR is logical over H2H...

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

i can understand why nz fans would be annoyed, but the rules are the same for both teams, and nz should be the last ones to complain about illogical rules when the qualified over pak on nrr despite losing to pak.

the rules are the rules, no one made an issue before this match so whats the point now?

NRR is illogical but head to head to logical?

NZ qualifying over Pak was fair.

Eng winning against NZ was unfair.

 

[ElRaja]

NRR is illogical but head to head to logical?

NZ qualifying over Pak was fair.

Eng winning against NZ was unfair.

NRR is logical over H2H...

to me h2h is more logical, but its pointless argument, nz deserved to qualify because they ranked higher according to the rules, my point is that you can make an argument either way but the important thing is that the rules were set out before the tournament, and are the same for every team.

you can complain all u want the rules are illogical after the fact, but its pointless, eng won.

 

[j_kazmi]

To be fair, number of wickets lost would be better way to decide the winner in the event of tied super over.

The team that looses more wickets in pursuit of the total in some way can be thought of as the side that batted worse as they had to use more batsmen to get to the same total as the opposition.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

to me h2h is more logical, but its pointless argument, nz deserved to qualify because they ranked higher according to the rules, my point is that you can make an argument either way but the important thing is that the rules were set out before the tournament, and are the same for every team.

you can complain all u want the rules are illogical after the fact, but its pointless, eng won.

No its not complaining if you understand why NRR is in place instead of H2H.

Of course, all rules are set in stone or else England wouldn't have won.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Super over is the fairest way once a team is tied.

Not boundaries.

Or wickets.

And if super over is tied, either declare joint winners...or have another super over.

Simple.

Clean.

Easy.

But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Rules were set long ago, doesn't matter if it's stupid or not. Nobody had problem with the rule until super over happened.

 

[PakFan764]

I don't understand why people are arguing so much about this.
I'm 120% sure that if Eng were the ones who had lost due to this there would have been no outcry just coz people think they're arrogant and what not. This is just ridiculous.

The rules were made before the WC, why did you not complain then??

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] as you are the only eng fan I've find, can you explain to me why are PPers hypocrites?

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

Rules were set long ago, doesn't matter if it's stupid or not. Nobody had problem with the rule until super over happened.

Icc is the big 3..

 

[gibsyhesperis]

The grapes are so sour on here, I think a lot of people are in serious risk of digestive disorders.
Rules were made before the tournament.
Just like the NRR deciding between NZ and Pak.

 

[PakFan764]

The grapes are so sour on here, I think a lot of people are in serious risk of digestive disorders.
Rules were made before the tournament.
Just like the NRR deciding between NZ and Pak.

If it doesn't fit the narrative then it's not right.

A general rule of humanity

 

[PakFan764]

I don't understand why people are arguing so much about this.
I'm 120% sure that if Eng were the ones who had lost due to this there would have been no outcry just coz people think they're arrogant and what not. This is just ridiculous.

The rules were made before the WC, why did you not complain then??

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] as you are the only eng fan I've *found*, can you explain to me why are PPers hypocrites?

Typo

 

[FreePalestine]

Icc is the big 3..

Exactly. Although was an amazing game! Deserved a proper finish. Boundaries as decider a terrible idea!

A lot of batting favoured regulations which, I guess, would favour big 3 teams. nrr, two new balls that dont even normally swing that much and eliminate reverse, and this boundaries business.

 

[Dios]

Everyone knew and agreed to the rules beforehand. It should have been challenged before the tournament but I guess no one thought it would come in to play. ICC should definitely change this going forward as it is a pretty ridiculous way to determine the winners of a tournament of such magnitude.

 

[Aman]

The grapes are so sour on here, I think a lot of people are in serious risk of digestive disorders.
Rules were made before the tournament.
Just like the NRR deciding between NZ and Pak.

NRR is by no means to losing a cricket match on boundaries..,.... Honestly the ones complaining, I hope they lose a WC on boundaries to understand the frustration and stuptisty of it all

 

[nads_rocks]

We can argue all we want, every sport has stern rules to decide a match. We can say this is unfair, thats unfair, got any other alternatives?

what about the away game rule advantage, why should a team need to score 2 goals when 1 can be tied but win on away goal in European competition?

Both teams give it their all, scores are tied but as a team scored an away goal they win? Isnt that robbed either of the other team

Rules are there and have to be adhered to and respected.

A lot of thought must have gone into such rules. Remember cricket has been played since 1800s, and games adapt rules adapt.

 

[Abdul]

New Zealand has simply gotten robbed. There's no other way to put this. I feel so sad for the Kiwis.

 

[sweep_shot]

NZ should've won for losing less wickets. Stupid rule from ICC.

 

[Aman]

NZ should've won for losing less wickets. Stupid rule from ICC.

It sounds like they've implemented T20 rules into the ODI game.

Complete mess, what we're they thinking?..

 

[aloo paratha]

NZ should've won for losing less wickets. Stupid rule from ICC.

It sounds like they've implemented T20 rules into the ODI game.

Complete mess, what we're they thinking?..

Boundary rule is pathetic but at the same time winning on wickets isn't right either. You either do whoever finished higher on the table wins or my preferred method, another super over until you get a result.

 

[aloo paratha]

We can argue all we want, every sport has stern rules to decide a match. We can say this is unfair, thats unfair, got any other alternatives?

what about the away game rule advantage, why should a team need to score 2 goals when 1 can be tied but win on away goal in European competition?

Both teams give it their all, scores are tied but as a team scored an away goal they win? Isnt that robbed either of the other team

Rules are there and have to be adhered to and respected.

A lot of thought must have gone into such rules. Remember cricket has been played since 1800s, and games adapt rules adapt.

This is like winning on 'shots on goal' or some other ridiculous metric.

 

[aloo paratha]

NRR is by no means to losing a cricket match on boundaries..,.... Honestly the ones complaining, I hope they lose a WC on boundaries to understand the frustration and stuptisty of it all

Yeah the dude has got it all wrong. NRR takes into account all runs scored by both teams, not just boundaries. When you do it on boundaries it's bound to be biased since teams have different approaches. At the end of the day runs are runs.

I cannot fathom that an international sporting organization would come up with a ridiculous rule like this.

 

[aloo paratha]

Super over is the fairest way once a team is tied.

Not boundaries.

Or wickets.

And if super over is tied, either declare joint winners...or have another super over.

Simple.

Clean.

Easy.

But noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

Bro that's too logical for the ICC

 

[troodon]

Should have played one more super over.

Kiwis were extremely unlucky.

England are an extremely good team.

 

[Captain caveman]

These rules have been around for awhile so stop whining.

No!
They change them every tournament!
Not so clever are we?

 

[Sunny_majoka]

This rule is pathetic.
Should have counted wickets instead pf boundaries.

 

[aloo paratha]

Should have played one more super over.

Kiwis were extremely unlucky.

England are an extremely good team.

Nobody is doubting England's ability, it is just ICC striking again. Why does it take them until somebody gets screwed over for them to get things right. SA in 1992 and now this.

 

[Reverse Sweep]

If the super over is tied they should have a bowl off.

 

[Madplayer]

What people should understand is that cricket as a game is about 2 things :

1) Batsman's role is to score runs. RUNS. Boundaries are just subset of runs. They are not the ONLY runs that the batsman scores. You can term boundaries as Glory runs which make the game exciting.

2) Bowler's role is to take wickets. There are no glory wickets. You either take a wicket or you dont. Yes what you can do is bowl good deliveries, beat the bat regularly, bowl bouncers, yorkers etc which make the game exciting.

The Boundaries scored by batsmen have no comparable metric with anything that a bowler does. The closest thing that you can think of are the deliveries which beat the bat because like boundaries, these too are a subset of taking wickets.

What ICC's rules did yesterday was that they ignored an important facet of the game. They made the bowlers completely useless and their achievement during the game was rendered futile. Even after all this, NZ managed to score equal number of runs yet ended up on the losing side. If this wasn't injustice then i dont know what is.

 

[Pakistanian]

No!
They change them every tournament!
Not so clever are we?

The rules were laid down before the tournament started, if this situation hadn't arise then y'all wouldn't have cared about this rule.

 

[Pakistanian]

OP is biased.

You can also spin this as "England 15/0 beat NZ 15/1 in the super over".

 

[volcyz]

OP is biased.

You can also spin this as "England 15/0 beat NZ 15/1 in the super over".

There wouldnt even be a super over

 

[babubengali14]

I can’t believe how sore losers some folks can be! I came to the forum to hopefully see some interesting discussions about the game itself. The rules were the same for both sides. Both captains, team and management should and would have been aware ahead of the game. The ICC did not come up with the rule during the final to spite NZ. We can come up with different “rules” of our making to suit which team we support.

 

[coy0607]

OP is biased.

You can also spin this as "England 15/0 beat NZ 15/1 in the super over".

in fact that would be a better consideration than the boundary thing

 

[Captain caveman]

what people should understand is that cricket as a game is about 2 things :

1) batsman's role is to score runs. Runs. Boundaries are just subset of runs. They are not the only runs that the batsman scores. You can term boundaries as glory runs which make the game exciting.

2) bowler's role is to take wickets. There are no glory wickets. You either take a wicket or you dont. Yes what you can do is bowl good deliveries, beat the bat regularly, bowl bouncers, yorkers etc which make the game exciting.

The boundaries scored by batsmen have no comparable metric with anything that a bowler does. The closest thing that you can think of are the deliveries which beat the bat because like boundaries, these too are a subset of taking wickets.

What icc's rules did yesterday was that they ignored an important facet of the game. They made the bowlers completely useless and their achievement during the game was rendered futile. Even after all this, nz managed to score equal number of runs yet ended up on the losing side. If this wasn't injustice then i dont know what is.

potw!

 

[Captain caveman]

Forget about the final!
Whats happened has happened!

Just on the number of boundaries as a tie breaker - whats the logic behind this?
I see no logic to have this as a tie breaker, just a desperate measure to find a winner!

 

[kingusama92]

It cannot possibly get worse as a NZ fan.

How can you compare anything in this sport again after losing a WC on boundaries.

It's not fair

I'm with you brother.

Complete robbery.

 

[Captain caveman]

Long ago, before most on here started watching cricket, there was no super over when teams were tied, they use to award the winner, as the team who had lost fewer wickets!!
So why was that ever changed?

 

[Captain caveman]

Long ago, before most on here started watching cricket, there was no super over when teams were tied, they use to award the winner, as the team who had lost fewer wickets!!
So why was that ever changed?

Seems alot fairer than a super over or any other one of these silly tie breakers they use now!!!

 

[Madplayer]

Forget about the final!
Whats happened has happened!

Just on the number of boundaries as a tie breaker - whats the logic behind this?
I see no logic to have this as a tie breaker, just a desperate measure to find a winner!

They preferred the subset of scoring runs (that is hitting boundaries) over the main achievement of a bowler (i.e. taking wickets). Thats how dumb this rule was. It barely makes any sense.

 

[Manager101]

OP is biased.

You can also spin this as "England 15/0 beat NZ 15/1 in the super over".

Yeah right, its awesome to award a super over when a particular team is allout in the main chase.

 

[Pakistanian]

Yeah right, its awesome to award a super over when a particular team is allout in the main chase.

The super over rule has been in effect since 2009, the other rules such boundaries being used for a tiebreaker were laid out before the start of the tournament. Keep crying.

 

[amvbfm]

Long ago, before most on here started watching cricket, there was no super over when teams were tied, they use to award the winner, as the team who had lost fewer wickets!!
So why was that ever changed?

Simple answer: T20 cricket. Everything is now being molded according to that format. A super over will always provide a more thrilling conclusion than more logical rules like wickets or the overall number of points.

 

[shane]

I am a bit surprised at the number of anti-England threads. At the end of the day, the best team won the tournament. NZ played their part and they will always be remembered fondly for it.

 

[Aman]

I am a bit surprised at the number of anti-England threads. At the end of the day, the best team won the tournament. NZ played their part and they will always be remembered fondly for it.

No doubt they were the best team, but are you telling me you're fine losing like that? This is our golden generation, it may be the closest we get to winning WC in our lifetimes.

 

[James]

Sorry to say but after watching this sports for more then 20 years, its time to say farewell to it, from my side atleast.

Don't forget to close the door on your way out!

 

[shane]

No doubt they were the best team, but are you telling me you're fine losing like that? This is our golden generation, it may be the closest we get to winning WC in our lifetimes.

You were a part of something really special. Nobody would be fine losing like that. But as time heals the wound, maybe you will realise that it is better to have lost in this fashion and be rememberd for it, than to have lost in the fashion you did in 2015 which was probably less painful in the short term but was nothing special in the long term.

 

[Aman]

You were a part of something really special. Nobody would be fine losing like that. But as time heals the wound, maybe you will realise that it is better to have lost in this fashion and be rememberd for it, than to have lost in the fashion you did in 2015 which was probably less painful in the short term but was nothing special in the long term.

This is going to be over the head of our present and future cricketers until we make amends. It's only going to add more pressure on them, and who knows if we'll have the cricketers to get there again.. you need a lot to go your way in these tournaments and then you have to play well to win the Final.

 

[shane]

This is going to be over the head of our present and future cricketers until we make amends. It's only going to add more pressure on them, and who knows if we'll have the cricketers to get there again.. you need a lot to go your way in these tournaments and then you have to play well to win the Final.

They got to the final twice and it is still a fairly young team with decent talent back home. Their time will come.

 

[Aman]

They got to the final twice and it is still a fairly young team with decent talent back home. Their time will come.

It will be difficult to do it in India, the SC teams will be far stronger. They have a lot of good talent coming through too.

Honestly neither team deserved to have it go down like this...

It's not how you determine a world champion..

 

[Manager101]

The super over rule has been in effect since 2009, the other rules such boundaries being used for a tiebreaker were laid out before the start of the tournament. Keep crying.

It's not about crying. It's about mentioning what is wrong and what is right. Doesn't matter before or after.

Even if England had lost due to this, I would have said the same thing.

 

[Phantom Menace]

They got to the final twice and it is still a fairly young team with decent talent back home. Their time will come.

It isn't a young team, its a team full of 27-32 year olds in their prime with one of our best ever batsmen at 35. It's likely less than half the team will be back for the next world cup including several key players that we are not going to be able to replace.

 

[in_cutter]

Nobody would be complaining if this had happened to Eng. Look, Eng are deserved winners afterall. NZ also had their fair share of luck to qualify for the semis. Sport is a great leveller. Commiserations to NZ.

 

[shane]

It isn't a young team, its a team full of 27-32 year olds in their prime with one of our best ever batsmen at 35. It's likely less than half the team will be back for the next world cup including several key players that we are not going to be able to replace.

Look, history has shown that, no matter the personnel, NZ keep getting into the latter stages of the big tournaments. They will win it eventually.

 

[Phantom Menace]

Look, history has shown that, no matter the personnel, NZ keep getting into the latter stages of the big tournaments. They will win it eventually.

We have managed to make semi-finals because we consistently make the very very most of our talent. We are normally lucky to even get that far. This is the most talented side we have ever had and likely ever will have. Participation in all sports is down across the board in NZ. This generation is our only chance. A Kane Williamson comes along once in 100 years for us, we may never get a batsman like him again.