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

[Aman]

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.

The thought this was our best and last chance is what is killing me.

To fall short like this is a tough pill to swallow. People don't get it, this is NZ a country of 5m. Cricket isn't big here, we can't guarantee more success or another stretch like this..

 

[malakian]

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..

England were the best team overall. They comfortably defeated NZ in the group stage. I know it hurts, but it is what it is.

 

[Aman]

England were the best team overall. They comfortably defeated NZ in the group stage. I know it hurts, but it is what it is.

England were the best team, think of it from a NZ perspective though. We may never get a better chance again, this was our golden generation and we couldn't get it done in 2 WCs.. this one especially hurt..

 

[Phantom Menace]

The thought this was our best and last chance is what is killing me.

To fall short like this is a tough pill to swallow. People don't get it, this is NZ a country of 5m. Cricket isn't big here, we can't guarantee more success or another stretch like this..

Yes it feels like this was our last chance. In 2023 we should have some good players of spin but it very much feels like our batting and bowling will be weaker in 4 years and also conditions will be far less suited to us. I want to trick my brain in to thinking we can compete to win in 2023 but I feel by that point, making the semi finals will be a huge success. How are we supposed to consistently beat the likes of India/Pak/Bang/Sri in Asian conditions not to discount Aus/Eng/SA.

 

[malakian]

England were the best team, think of it from a NZ perspective though. We may never get a better chance again, this was our golden generation and we couldn't get it done in 2 WCs.. this one especially hurt..

I feel for you pal, i honestly do. For a small country, you're the greatest sporting nation.

 

[Aman]

Yes it feels like this was our last chance. In 2023 we should have some good players of spin but it very much feels like our batting and bowling will be weaker in 4 years and also conditions will be far less suited to us. I want to trick my brain in to thinking we can compete to win in 2023 but I feel by that point, making the semi finals will be a huge success. How are we supposed to consistently beat the likes of India/Pak/Bang/Sri in Asian conditions not to discount Aus/Eng/SA.

Only can hope the next generation were inspired by this and will be monsters.

Feel for Kane, he led incredibly well and if he had won the WC he would have become a sure fire NZ sporting icon and all time cricket legend whose names is mentioned along with Imran, AB, Clive Lyod, Dhoni etc.

 

[Captain caveman]

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.

You sir , have won the prize!!
I made the same argument about net run rate and people ridiculed me!
Now, what have those people have to say!!

 

[Mamoon]

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?

There is a perplexing anti-English bias here. That has never changed.

 

[James]

England were the best team, think of it from a NZ perspective though. We may never get a better chance again, this was our golden generation and we couldn't get it done in 2 WCs.. this one especially hurt..

Don’t really see how that is an argument. There is next to no chance of England winning the next World Cup either, in subcontinent conditions (India) and this was our golden generation, our best chance of winning it as well. By 2027 we will be back to getting caned in the Super Sixes.

 

[Manager101]

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?

Your assumption is wrong, even if England had lost due to this farce, most would still call it unfair. Moreover, I was supporting England, but this win never felt like one.

Calling spade a spade isn't hypocrisy.

 

[Aman]

Don’t really see how that is an argument. There is next to no chance of England winning the next World Cup either, in subcontinent conditions (India) and this was our golden generation, our best chance of winning it as well. By 2027 we will be back to getting caned in the Super Sixes.

You have the resources to eventually challenge again, it is difficult for us to get here.

 

[FreePalestine]

A lot of these rules favour batting sides. The big 3 control the ICC. The ICC makes the rules. At least 2 of the big three are batting sides primarily. There probably is some deliberate bias in these rules.

 

[Abdullah719]

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.

How many people knew about the rule previously?

 

[Hasan123]

How many people knew about the rule previously?

Doesn't change the fact it was still there.

 

[princeuk]

This felt like the most logical thing to award NZ the game as they lost fewer wickets. or at least if both teams scored 15 runs in the superover then NZ should have been awarded the match because they had lost fewer wickets, NZ are damn unlucky.

 

[IMMY69]

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.

I'm an English Fan and I'm complaining...

Its not about the best team of the tournament winning the trophy.
Its a final, favourite vs underdog, and the result is decided by how many boundaries are scored?? Really?

Say it loud to yourself, England won the worldcup based on how many boundaries they scored...
To me it sounds absolutely ridiculous. Especially if the team that won couldn't match the other teams in terms of wickets in hand.

This goes against the very essence of cricket and this is also why for many many years a drawn game was decided on the number of wickets lost.

Also, strange that no one actually knew how many boundaries each team had scored, just that England had scored more, prior to the last delivery being bowled in the 102nd over of the match. Tells you how much importance anyone gave to the number of boundaries scored...

 

[Harsh Thakor]

I'm an English Fan and I'm complaining...

Its not about the best team of the tournament winning the trophy.
Its a final, favourite vs underdog, and the result is decided by how many boundaries are scored?? Really?

Say it loud to yourself, England won the worldcup based on how many boundaries they scored...
To me it sounds absolutely ridiculous. Especially if the team that won couldn't match the other teams in terms of wickets in hand.

This goes against the very essence of cricket and this is also why for many many years a drawn game was decided on the number of wickets lost.

Also, strange that no one actually knew how many boundaries each team had scored, just that England had scored more, prior to the last delivery being bowled in the 102nd over of the match. Tells you how much importance anyone gave to the number of boundaries scored...

great sportsmanship sir. Thats the true spirit of the game.

 

[introvert]

The wickets rule is as bad as boundary tie breaker. Ideally runs are runs whether scored in 1s and 2s or 4 and 6 . When both teams bat full 50 overs then saved wickets are irrelevant because they scored same number of runs on same number of balls. So I don't agree with OP.
Super over is must to decide winner in tie matches during knockout stage. It's just that they need to find a better method to use as tie breaker which considers all facets of the game without any discrimination.

 

[The_Odd_One]

Bowling an additional super-over or two will not kill teams. The super-over tie-breaker should continue until a winner is decided.

Only in cricket, you will look at an irrelevant stats like number of boundaries in a world cup final.

 

[IMMY69]

great sportsmanship sir. Thats the true spirit of the game.

Great sportsmanship would be for Kiwis to be declared joint winners

 

[IMMY69]

The wickets rule is as bad as boundary tie breaker. Ideally runs are runs whether scored in 1s and 2s or 4 and 6 . When both teams bat full 50 overs then saved wickets are irrelevant because they scored same number of runs on same number of balls. So I don't agree with OP.
Super over is must to decide winner in tie matches during knockout stage. It's just that they need to find a better method to use as tie breaker which considers all facets of the game without any discrimination.

You are absolutely wrong.

The game of crickets is fundamentally about one team scoring more runs then other team and each team has two important components, balls (bowlers/overs) and batsmen (wickets)..

A team that scores the same total as the other whilst losing less wickets has clearly gone about it better...
How is that so difficult to understand??

 

[Pakistanian]

You are absolutely wrong.

The game of crickets is fundamentally about one team scoring more runs then other team and each team has two important components, balls (bowlers/overs) and batsmen (wickets)..

A team that scores the same total as the other whilst losing less wickets has clearly gone about it better...
How is that so difficult to understand??

No, you're not taking into consideration that a team chasing will approach the game differently than a team setting a score. If a team scores 250/3 but loses the game by one wicket to a team that scores 251/9 doesn't mean that the former team has "clearly gone about it better" . Chasing a total and setting up a total are two very different situations and shouldn't be judged by the same metric.

 

[introvert]

You are absolutely wrong.

The game of crickets is fundamentally about one team scoring more runs then other team and each team has two important components, balls (bowlers/overs) and batsmen (wickets)..

A team that scores the same total as the other whilst losing less wickets has clearly gone about it better...
How is that so difficult to understand??

You don't get bonus points or runs for saving wickets in full 50 overs match.
As you said the game of cricket is fundamentally about one team scoring more runs then other team. Here both the teams scored 217 runs in 300 balls.
Teams have 10 wickets to use but its upto them how they want to use it.
Hence imo wickets rule is as absurd as boundaries rule. This thread doesn't make sense . here OP is against concept of super overs and wants award match to NZ by wickets tie breaker rule.

 

[Manager101]

You don't get bonus points or runs for saving wickets in full 50 overs match.
As you said the game of cricket is fundamentally about one team scoring more runs then other team. Here both the teams scored 217 runs in 300 balls.
Teams have 10 wickets to use but its upto them how they want to use it.
Hence imo wickets rule is as absurd as boundaries rule. This thread doesn't make sense . here OP is against concept of super overs and wants award match to NZ by wickets tie breaker rule.

In opening post, my main point was that England got 'Allout', they literally had no wickets left to play any further, hence in that situation super over should be null and void.

 

[Mamoon]

In opening post, my main point was that England got 'Allout', they literally had no wickets left to play any further, hence in that situation super over should be null and void.

Super-over resets the runs and the wickets. That is why it starts from 0/0 and Stokes was on 0 as well.

What you are suggesting will only be applicable if the super-over is an extension of the innings, and basically serves as the 51st over, with the batsmen who are left at the crease at the end of the innings batting in the super-power.

 

[Manager101]

Super-over resets the runs and the wickets. That is why it starts from 0/0 and Stokes was on 0 as well.

What you are suggesting will only be applicable if the super-over is an extension of the innings, and basically serves as the 51st over, with the batsmen who are left at the crease at the end of the innings batting in the super-power.

Why should it reset for a team that got bowled out ?

 

[Pakistanian]

Why should it reset for a team that got bowled out ?

Why should the overs be reset when a team bowled their allotted 50 overs?

 

[Mamoon]

Why should it reset for a team that got bowled out ?

England batted again for the same reason that Guptill and Neesham batted for New Zealand, even though they had been dismissed in the New Zealand innings.

What you are suggesting would require a complete revamp of rules.

If A scores 250/6 and B scores 250/8 in reply, then B bats first in the super-over, resumes from 250/8 and if they score 15 runs, the target for A would be 266.

If a batsman is on 90* and scores 10 in the super-over, he gets his hundred.

Similarly, a bowler who has completed his quota will not be allowed to bowl either.

Basically, the super-over would be the 51st over, but the chasing side would complete their 51st over first.

This obviously won’t work because it doesn’t put the two teams on equal footing.

 

[Manager101]

England batted again for the same reason that Guptill and Neesham batted for New Zealand, even though they had been dismissed in the New Zealand innings.

What you are suggesting would require a complete revamp of rules.

If A scores 250/6 and B scores 250/8 in reply, then B bats first in the super-over, resumes from 250/8 and if they score 15 runs, the target for A would be 266.

If a batsman is on 90* and scores 10 in the super-over, he gets his hundred.

Similarly, a bowler who has completed his quota will not be allowed to bowl either.

Basically, the super-over would be the 51st over, but the chasing side would complete their 51st over first.

This obviously won’t work because it doesn’t put the two teams on equal footing.

Similiarly the boundary rule doesn't put both teams on equal footing as it ignores the dot balls, ones, twos and threes.

 

[Manager101]

Why should the overs be reset when a team bowled their allotted 50 overs?

You are completely ignoring the fact that a particular team was allout. If England was 9 down after a tie, then it would be fine but a match should finish logically once the chasing team is allout even in a tiebreaker.

 

[dhump]

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.

The assumption on which you based your story is entirely flawed people are complaining about the rules not about England winning so everyone would have done the same.

 

[Mamoon]

Similiarly the boundary rule doesn't put both teams on equal footing as it ignores the dot balls, ones, twos and threes.

It does. What stopped New Zealand from hitting more boundaries than England?

The dot balls, 1s, 2s, 3s were ignored just like England’s higher points in the group, better NRR (best among all teams) and H2H superiority over New Zealand were ignored.

They weren’t part of the rule. The rule was to determine over the number of boundaries and England won according to the rule.

 

[Mamoon]

You are completely ignoring the fact that a particular team was allout. If England was 9 down after a tie, then it would be fine but a match should finish logically once the chasing team is allout even in a tiebreaker.

Why didn’t you have a problem with Guptill and Neesham batting in the super-over. They were already dismissed, just like England.

 

[Manager101]

It does. What stopped New Zealand from hitting more boundaries than England?

The dot balls, 1s, 2s, 3s were ignored just like England’s higher points in the group, better NRR (best among all teams) and H2H superiority over New Zealand were ignored.

They weren’t part of the rule. The rule was to determine over the number of boundaries and England won according to the rule.

It isn't about who won or lost, its about the dumb rule of deciding a winner based on more boundaries at the very end.

 

[Manager101]

Why didn’t you have a problem with Guptill and Neesham batting in the super-over. They were already dismissed, just like England.

Where did I said I have no problem with Guptill and Neesham batting in super over ?

I have been saying super over shouldn't happen at all considering the chasing team was allout.

 

[Mamoon]

It isn't about who won or lost, its about the dumb rule of deciding a winner based on more boundaries at the very end.

I agree it is a dumb rule, both it was the same for both teams. New Zealand should have scored more boundaries. They only scored 20 in the last 18 balls with 4 wickets in hand, and they were ducking deliveries in the last over.

 

[introvert]

Where did I said I have no problem with Guptill and Neesham batting in super over ?

I have been saying super over shouldn't happen at all considering the chasing team was allout.

So if not super over what is the logical solution according to you ?

 

[IMMY69]

So if not super over what is the logical solution according to you ?

Manager101 is absolutely correct...

Do people not understand cricket? What is going on here at PP????

Of course wickets matter.
The best way to separate a team is runs followed by wickets.
No a super over should not have taken place because England were all out... Why is this so difficult to understand for so many people here?

Runs and wickets are what the game is all about. You can't make runs without wickets in Hand.
So if a team is tied it should naturally come down to wickets.

The idea that a team is allowed to play a super over when it has been bowled out is illogical.

The fact they played a super over, which they should not have, then they should have continued to play super overs until one team won. To go on boundary count just makes no sense whatsoever. Its just not cricket.

 

[IMMY69]

Those that argue England would have played differently if wickets were taken in to account.
Until the very last delivery they were trying to win the game outright. They lost Rashid on the 5th delivery and hence were 9 down so they would have lost the game anyway on wickets. But then they took the second run off the last delivery anyway so they were still going for the win but lost their last wicket in trying to do so.

So this didn't change they way they played...

 

[Kingkong]

Manager101 is absolutely correct...

Do people not understand cricket? What is going on here at PP????

Of course wickets matter.
The best way to separate a team is runs followed by wickets.
No a super over should not have taken place because England were all out... Why is this so difficult to understand for so many people here?

Runs and wickets are what the game is all about. You can't make runs without wickets in Hand.
So if a team is tied it should naturally come down to wickets.

The idea that a team is allowed to play a super over when it has been bowled out is illogical.

The fact they played a super over, which they should not have, then they should have continued to play super overs until one team won. To go on boundary count just makes no sense whatsoever. Its just not cricket.

The rules were not conjured up at that time. The fact that the match would go to the super over if the scores were level, regardless of wickets n even if one team was all-out was agreed upon and known to all teams well before the WC began. If someone had a problem with the logic behind this rule they should have taken it up before the WC started. Arguing against it now is absurd.

 

[IMMY69]

The rules were not conjured up at that time. The fact that the match would go to the super over if the scores were level, regardless of wickets n even if one team was all-out was agreed upon and known to all teams well before the WC began. If someone had a problem with the logic behind this rule they should have taken it up before the WC started. Arguing against it now is absurd.

Thats not the point I am making.
Yes of course by the rules England won because they scored more boundaries then New Zealand.
What I'm saying is that the rules are unjust and are not in line with what cricket is all about.

Just like in 1992, the rain rules then were absurd, but they were still implemented during the tournament.
Thankfully they have been changed since then.

The laws have to be changed again because the way this final was decided made no sense at all. When a team has been bowled out thats it for them and thats how it should have been left now.

I support England against every team except for Pakistan. My children only support England, not only in cricket but in every sport. However, I genuinely feel for the Kiwis on this one and any other fan from a different country would feel the same had it been their team who lost on a boundary count.

 

[Major]

It has been two days, i dont even support New Zealand but yet i feel soo gutted for there team and there captain Kane Williamson.

It just sucks

It has been 2 days, but still feel this way.

 

[Major]

I agree it is a dumb rule, both it was the same for both teams. New Zealand should have scored more boundaries. They only scored 20 in the last 18 balls with 4 wickets in hand, and they were ducking deliveries in the last over.

bro come on, i expect logic from you

No one plays cricket keeping in mind that number of boundaries will determine the winner.

In hindsight we can say all this that they should had scored more boundaries this and that.

Look, whatever the rules were, you still have to understand what the New Zealand fans are feeling. At one point they had won the game, but yet they lost and that to because of a tie. People shouldnt be arguing here as it hurts.

If this had happened against us it would had hurt really bad.

yes both teams knew the rules and all, but still such defeat hurts....

Anyways, its better if we have bowl outs. THe best thing about bowl outs is that you keep on bowling till one person losses.

Super over concept was always gonna be problematic as a super over tie doesnt lead to another super over.
If we are going too look at number of boundaries in the end then having a super over is just useless aswell.