What's new

Pakistan out because of NRR and New Zealand lost final of the World Cup because of less boundaries!

IAJ

IAJ

ODI Star
Joined
Dec 14, 2008
Runs
33,109
Post of the Week
1
Us Pakistanis felt ruined when we got kicked out of WC because our net run rate was bad.

And today poor Kiwis lost because of less boundaries scored. This must be painful, feel for you guys.

I think NZ was the better team, wonderful final nonetheless.
 
Absolute disgrace of a rule.

Cricket is a game where you have to score more runs. Not more boundaries.
 
It's crazy if you think about it btw I think it's a stupid rule if team were tied on super over they just just continue another over until u have a winner
 
NZ lost 8 wickets, England got all out. That overthrow switched game in England's favour
 
NRR and this is not same bhai.

Losing out on NRR is unfortunate but there is no other fairer way to find out which team did better.

But this overthrows........is daylight robbery.
 
If, instead of boundaries, they had counted the total wickets taken then it would have been a celebration for NZ.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
NRR and this is not same bhai.

Losing out on NRR is unfortunate but there is no other fairer way to find out which team did better.

But this overthrows........is daylight robbery.
Click to expand...

Of course there is a difference. See all the threads posted here when Pakistan got out. So when we felt robbed, ironically because of NZ, so just imagine what NZ must be feeling.
 
New Zealand lost the world cup off a technicality but they also made the semis of a technicality

So people whining about the Kiwis being "robbed" of the world cup need to keep the same energy cause if it wasn't for this techninicalites then they wouldn't have made the semis anyways. So congratulations, they deserved to win.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
NRR and this is not same bhai.

Losing out on NRR is unfortunate but there is no other fairer way to find out which team did better.

But this overthrows........is daylight robbery.
Click to expand...

Correct me if i am wrong but if both team have equal number of boundaries than it would have come to who finish high in group stage the Last option would have been NRR
 
That’s a fair point. I would really like to see the “more boundaries” rule change in the future though. It’s farcical
 
New Zealand went through to the semi finals because they played better Cricket than Pakistan.

England got lucky today with the deflection going for four, it should have been a dead ball and only two runs counted
 
NRR isn't a meaningless technicality.

Every tourney uses it cos that's the most reliable way to test which team did better in case of a tie in points.

The overthrow rule is crazy.

Geez man.

This is basic stuff.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
NRR isn't a meaningless technicality.

Every tourney uses it cos that's the most reliable way to test which team did better in case of a tie in points.

The overthrow rule is crazy.

Geez man.

This is basic stuff.
Click to expand...

It is cause net run rate can be botched off just one bad game or one prolific game. Head-to-head to should be given priority over NRR.
 
saeed5646 said:
Correct me if i am wrong but if both team have equal number of boundaries than it would have come to who finish high in group stage the Last option would have been NRR
Click to expand...

That I don't know bro.

Someone else can clarify,

But this thread talks about Pak NRR and that overthrow rules.
 
There you have it.

But okay, let's say you don't use the higher number of boundaries rule. The alternative is something like whoever has a better H2H or finished higher in the league stage - which England would win too.

In 1999, the match was tied but Australia went through due to finishing higher in the Super Six table.
 
Pakistanian said:
It is cause net run rate can be botched off just one bad game or one prolific game. Head-to-head to should be given priority over NRR.
Click to expand...

Yes it's not perfect.

Yet, it's more fairer than head to heads.

Imagine losing to a team and having the ill-luck of missing out just because of head to heads.

With NRR, you know what you need from the get go.

Just plan it better.

NRR ain't perfect.

But it's the fairest system as of now.
 
NZ deserved the World Cup.. It couldn't have been any closer.. This is really really saddening..
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
Yes it's not perfect.

Yet, it's more fairer than head to heads.

Imagine losing to a team and having the ill-luck of missing out just because of head to heads.

With NRR, you know what you need from the get go.

Just plan it better.

NRR ain't perfect.

But it's the fairest system as of now.
Click to expand...

Head-to-head is way to go, when two teams are tied on points then the match result between them should decide who goes forward. Losing head to head isn't just "sheer luck" unlike NRR.
 
Woa to win a world cup on a technicality, what a dumb way!
 
Pakistanian said:
Head-to-head is way to go, when two teams are tied on points then the match result between them should decide who goes forward. Losing head to head isn't just "sheer luck" unlike NRR.
Click to expand...

No man.

Think about it.

NRR is what you get for CONSISTENT performance in the tourney.

Head to head can be a throw of dice where you HOPE that the team you beat is what is tied with you.

India beat Aus who beat Pak who beat Eng who beat NZ who beat WI who beat Pak.

Are you telling me....head to heads will be a fair way in the above situation?

It ain't.

Imagine a situation where you are tied with WI and losing out even tho you had WAY better NRR.

Just because WI lucked out beating you...they go in inspite of poor NRR performance throughout the cup.

Does that sound fair?

Think it over.
 
sensible-indian-fan said:
No man.

Think about it.

NRR is what you get for CONSISTENT performance in the tourney.

Head to head can be a throw of dice where you HOPE that the team you beat is what is tied with you.

India beat Aus who beat Pak who beat Eng who beat NZ who beat WI who beat Pak.

Are you telling me....head to heads will be a fair way in the above situation?

It ain't.

Imagine a situation where you are tied with WI and losing out even tho you had WAY better NRR.

Just because WI lucked out beating you...they go in inspite of poor NRR performance throughout the cup.

Does that sound fair?

Think it over.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair.
 
Pakistanian said:
Head-to-head is way to go, when two teams are tied on points then the match result between them should decide who goes forward. Losing head to head isn't just "sheer luck" unlike NRR.
Click to expand...

H2H can't be used if more than 2 teams are tied on the same point.

NRR isn't "sheer luck" at all. It's the quantitative figure of your margins of wins & losses. So it makes a lot more sense than H2H because it can be used even if all 10 teams are tied on the same points.
 
People here acting like this rule was made specifically for today. It's been like that since the creation of ODI cricket.
Didn't see any of you moaning about it back then...
 
ak619 said:
H2H can't be used if more than 2 teams are tied on the same point.

NRR isn't "sheer luck" at all. It's the quantitative figure of your margins of wins & losses. So it makes a lot more sense than H2H because it can be used even if all 10 teams are tied on the same points.
Click to expand...

So make that the exception.
If 2 or more teams are on the same points then make NRR the deciding factor. If only 2 are then use H to H.
 
Markhor said:
There you have it.

But okay, let's say you don't use the higher number of boundaries rule. The alternative is something like whoever has a better H2H or finished higher in the league stage - which England would win too.

In 1999, the match was tied but Australia went through due to finishing higher in the Super Six table.
Click to expand...

League stage performances in 1999 only came in because both teams were all out. Otherwise the team which lost lesser number of wickets would have gone through.
 
It was important for the game of cricket for England as a world champions.
Rugby is the game for Kiwiz, cricket is not that popular over there.
 
This is like Djokovic-Federer at 12-12 being settled by most number of aces. Ridiculous.
 
Two entirely different things.

But more number of boundaries deciding a World Cup Final is the dumbest rule ever. As the guy above said it's like deciding the Wimbledon final on who hit the most aces.
 
Amazing match. But this rule of boundaries is so arbitrary it’s not even funny. Maybe next time the team that has scored more doubles should win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

hassan918
“Pakistan lost against the USA in T20 World Cup because of no unity”: Azhar Ali
2 3
Replies
178
Views
4K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Savak
New Zealand becoming the new Australia for Pakistan since 2011
Replies
29
Views
1K
GoUgandaCranes
GoUgandaCranes
Savak
SENA stats don’t lie: Pakistan edge India in England and New Zealand
2
Replies
112
Views
3K
harshjoshi87
harshjoshi87
RidiculousMan
What went wrong for Pakistan against New Zealand in ICC Champions Trophy 2025? - Personal assessment
2
Replies
133
Views
4K
TheSultan
T
Cricket Warrior
"Mohammad Haris was Player of the Series at number 3 against Bangladesh now pushed to 6/7 — yet no one notices": Salman Ali Agha
2
Replies
80
Views
2K
zahid01
Z
Back
Top