"Today New Zealand were the best team, but the rub of the green went to England" : Shane Warne

[Sean143]

Chill out, you are the champions in our eyes, the fact that such an event would have made me sad even if had happened to India, shows the magnitude of hard luck that we just witnessed tomorrow. I think you must feel proud in the way your players and people handled themselves after this. If it were in my hand I would have given you 3 WC trophies for that, it does feel sad though.
Have always been a fan of Kiwis, but after this I love NZ even more, you guys are truly honest and professional. Williamson is the GOAT of this generation.

Those who witnessed it all, will pass it on to future generations, and I hope that 20 years from now every body recognises the fact that even though Eng won this WC, NZ were equally deserving.

Kudos to both the sides, for such an exhilarating contest. I know the likes of Botham were very unlikable for their arrogance in the past, but not this Eng side, they are humble, deserve every bit of it too. For me NZ and Eng are joint champions.

PS: Was good to see that Stokes apologised right after that overthrow, and didn't try to run. Stokes deserved to be on the winning side too. Hard to pick a loser from yesterday's game, in fact impossible.

yesterday* typo

 

[Hawkeye]

I told you not to bet against this England team. They are super clutch and have the hunger and desire to fight to the last ball.

Not really Mamoon. Tried their best to lose, and wrong decisions, several of them, kinda forced the victory on them.

 

[Mamoon]

Not really Mamoon. Tried their best to lose, and wrong decisions, several of them, kinda forced the victory on them.

Chokers cannot win successive games against India, New Zealand, Australia and New Zealand again under pressure. They are a clutch team.

 

[Aman]

Chokers cannot win successive games against India, New Zealand, Australia and New Zealand again under pressure. They are a clutch team.

They didn't beat us.. it went down as a tie..

 

[Mamoon]

They didn't beat us.. it went down as a tie..

They won according to the rules, which were the same for both sides. You can criticize the rules, but it won’t change the result.

England scored boundaries, they had more points in the group and defeated New Zealand in the World Cup already. A tie wasn’t in New Zealand’s favor.

 

[BDfanforever]

I don't understand how everyone is feeling so apologetic to NZ? They had the biggest luck factors in group stage, then against India with the rain. Kane was clearly out against RSA but he didn't walk.

I think NZ is a great team, but scoring paltry 240ish scores are not good enough.

 

[ak619]

And yes, the country is proud of NZ and will be getting a champions welcome back home. Plenty of fans from other countries have been telling me we got robbed lol..

Kane's stock is sky high atm, as is a few players who have become really popular with Pakistani and Indian fans.

Indians have always had a soft corner for Kiwis and especially their cricket team.

Remember how in the last WC final all Indians were rooting for them?

In fact, I'd go as far as saying that Baz became a superstar in India well before he did in his home country.

A lot of it is down to how the Kiwis handle themselves on the field. Always gracious, regardless of the outcome of the game. Just overall a good bunch of guys. And they've always been that way.

I've noticed this that Indians have some sort of connection with Kiwis, Saffers and West Indians. Don't know what it is but I'm very glad that they are there.

 

[Harsh Thakor]

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

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

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

 

[Harsh Thakor]

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

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

It is cricket and sport that won yesterday .

 

[Imran's Tiger]

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

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

It is cricket and sport that won yesterday .

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

 

[Mamoon]

To those who are complaining about the boundaries.

What stopped New Zealand from scoring boundaries?

Why did they only score 20 in the last 18 balls of their innings when they had 4 wickets in hand?

Why did Santner duck the last ball? What was the rationale behind his wisdom of not trying to put bat on ball?

Yes New Zealand didn’t know that it would come down to that, but neither did England.

However, England were more adventurous as usual, and the likes of Roy and Bairstow were regularly finding boundaries even when the New Zealand bowlers were all over them.

England’s attacking approach ultimately won the them the World Cup, while New Zealand’s conservatism cost them.

 

[BDfanforever]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] what do you think of NZ Cricket? They only have like 5 million population but their Cricket is so good. They were back to back finalists in CWC.

 

[DHONI183]

"Today New Zealand were the best team, but the rub of the green went to England" : Shane Warne

First of all, congratulations to every England fan for having won the trophy. England were great throughout the tournament. However, I hope my post isn´t interpreted as myself grumpy or bitter over the events from the Final. No, it´s not the case. In fact, you can read my post from yesterday morning where I said that if England end up losing the Final, I´ll feel more sad for them than for New Zealand (at that stage, I didn´t foresee the way things would unfold). So congratulations to them. Enjoy the glory!

However.....

The oft-stated saying in sports goes like, "You need a bit of luck to win", but yesterday the saying has taken the definition of luck to a whole new level. That overthrow off the bat of Stokes will perhaps forever go down as the greatest piece of luck ever received in sports. Ever. The saying for yesterday´s Final should be, "Luck needed a bit of England to win." In the end, luck won. Pure luck. You could almost say that Australia have won five world cups, both the West Indies and India two each, one each for Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and now Luck.

Where New Zealand deserve to be applauded is that after every little piece of luck going against them, they gathered pieces of their soul and heart and began to fight again. Every time. Every little thing that could go against them, it did go against them yesterday - and absolutely the reverse for England. New Zealand were up against bad luck, and sadly, luck won. Luck wins if it goes against you so many times. Kudos to them for the fight that they showed. They can walk away with their heads held high, knowing that they neither lost the full 100-match, nor the Super Over. This is such a rarity that it´ll not be repeated every time. Such a match, such role of luck, two ties in one match..... nothing of these will ever be repeated. Not anytime soon at least. Literally, nothing favoured New Zealand.

1. Nicholls given out when the ball was clearly going over the stumps. LUCKily, yes, luckily, New Zealand had a review in their bag to get the decision reversed.

2. The same thing repeats itself in the middle overs when Taylor was ruled LBW, but this time they didn´t have a review to turn to. Given that England could still review it if had been out, the umpire could´ve been a little lenient on the Kiwis for not having a review, but up went the finger.

3. On the other hand, I think two close LBW decisions were given as not out on Umpire´s Call. Yes, that foolish little rule!

4. Just watch the first six to seven overs bowled up front by Boult and Henry. It is the greatest spell of opening fast bowling that I´ve seen in a World Cup Final, yet it yields just one wicket. The ball misses the stumps by a whisker on many occasions, inside edges miss the stumps.... No luck!

5. Boult takes Stokes catch on the boundary. Match over. No, it wasn´t. Boult has touched the rope with his foot. On the contrary, it´s a six which brings England right back into the game. Boult could so well have thrown the ball to Guptill standing close to him so that the latter could complete the catch, but he doesn´t. He could´ve at least tried to throw the ball on the ground inside the rope to avoid conceding a six. Surely, not conceding a six was almost as precious as removing Stokes altogether, but it doesn´t happen.

6. Then comes the overthrow. The single greatest piece of luck in sports. Still though, if the umpires had better understood the rules of the game, or even referred it upstairs to confirm things, it would´ve been five runs instead of six, and Stokes would´ve not been on strike for the next delivery.

7. However, despite all that, the game is tied, the Super Over too results in a tie. England are awarded the trophy based on the rule of having hit more boundaries! The Kiwis didn´t lose, Luck just won. All of this.... if all or even a half of all these events are ever repeated in a cricket match, especially a final, I´ll be mightily surprised!

 

[DHONI183]

"Today New Zealand were the best team, but the rub of the green went to England" : Shane Warne

One thing which I forgot to add to my post was that, alright, missed chances, dropped catches, bad umpiring decisions, ball missing the stumps and all that stuff is a part of cricket. Well and truly, no doubt; and these things happen. However, what does not happen and what´s not part of the game at all is the deflection off the bat to run all the way to the boundary (in a crunch situation like that). Add to that the error of not correctly interpreting the rules on the part of the umpires. A bad decision is a whole different thing to misinterpreting the rules or not being aware of them altogether.

 

[Robert]

Cannot believe such stupid rules exist.

This is on the ICC, a world champion was decided on these terrible rules. They will have to live with this embarrassment and England will not be able to fully enjoy their world championship because of the incompetence of the ICC.

Yeah, they will.

It should have been done on wickets lost and no spurious super over. But if there was no super over, Stokes would have played differently. Maybe holed out swinging, maybe got over the line with a six. Who knows?

The Gods were kind to England on Sunday. Many other times, they have been cruel to England. Maybe they will be kind to NZ next time. I would be happy to see that.

 

[Mamoon]

[MENTION=131701]Mamoon[/MENTION] what do you think of NZ Cricket? They only have like 5 million population but their Cricket is so good. They were back to back finalists in CWC.

New Zealand have a brilliant sporting culture, but they are too nice in cricket. They need to shed the gentleman image and get a little feisty.

 

[jnaveen1980]

Rules are rules. If there was no NRR rule, you would be going home in the semis. Should have hit more boundaries.

You cannot possibly support "boundary rule" can you lol How is 4 is better than 4 singles. In NRR you can clearly say something is better than other. In wicket count you can say something is better than other categorically. You cannot say that here? Why not decide on singles instead of boundaries. This is like saying 100 dollar bill is greater than 100 single dollar bills.

 

[BDfanforever]

You cannot possibly support "boundary rule" can you lol How is 4 is better than 4 singles. In NRR you can clearly say something is better than other. In wicket count you can say something is better than other categorically. You cannot say that here? Why not decide on singles instead of boundaries. This is like saying 100 dollar bill is greater than 100 single dollar bills.

No I think boundaries takes more skill. Also 100 note would be worth more in money exchange vs 100 singles. Every time I went for exchange in BD those guys asked me if I had brand new 100 dollar note lol.

 

[Mamoon]

You cannot possibly support "boundary rule" can you lol How is 4 is better than 4 singles. In NRR you can clearly say something is better than other. In wicket count you can say something is better than other categorically. You cannot say that here? Why not decide on singles instead of boundaries. This is like saying 100 dollar bill is greater than 100 single dollar bills.

As I said, it doesn’t matter. Not all rules are perfect and this isn’t the only rule that doesn’t make sense. For example, scoring runs when the batsmen has failed to put bat on ball is also ridiculous, but it is what it is.

The rules were there for both teams and England won according to the rules. The real issue for most people is that England won the World Cup. I can assure that if New Zealand had prevailed because of the boundaries rule, people wouldn’t be whining so much.

 

[big_gamer007]

As I said, it doesn’t matter. Not all rules are perfect and this isn’t the only rule that doesn’t make sense. For example, scoring runs when the batsmen has failed to put bat on ball is also ridiculous, but it is what it is.

The rules were there for both teams and England won according to the rules. The real issue for most people is that England won the World Cup. I can assure that if New Zealand had prevailed because of the boundaries rule, people wouldn’t be whining so much.

Rules are rules and England won. However the umpires didn't even know the rules themselves when they awarded 6 runs instead of 5.

No one is blaming England here they won and deserved to win for consistency in last 4 years.

However the umpires made mistake and the boundary rule and overthrow rule needs to be looked at by ICC and modified. Both the rules are pathetic especially the boundary rule, it's a joke to have such a rule.

 

[Danyaalr01]

Rules are rules. If there was no NRR rule, you would be going home in the semis. Should have hit more boundaries.

So your saying hitting a 4 is better than getting 4 through rotation of strike.
Wickets is a far better indicator of overall performance than boundaries.

If a team hits more boundaries, then they have also faced more dot balls, why shouldn’t a team be punished for facing more dots.

 

[Danyaalr01]

These rules obviously favor the side with a more aggressive batting line up (England) than a side with better ability to rotate strike (NZ).

 

[Mamoon]

These rules obviously favor the side with a more aggressive batting line up (England) than a side with better ability to rotate strike (NZ).

Can we get stats on the dot ball percentage of New Zealand compared to other teams in this World Cup? I highly doubt that they would be at the top. Some of their batsmen are dreadful at working the singles and doubles.

 

[Mamoon]

So your saying hitting a 4 is better than getting 4 through rotation of strike.
Wickets is a far better indicator of overall performance than boundaries.

If a team hits more boundaries, then they have also faced more dot balls, why shouldn’t a team be punished for facing more dots.

I am not saying that it is better or worse. My point is that the rules were applicable on both teams, and England fared better.

If the rule was that the team that performs more jumping jacks in 5 mins wins, it would have been utterly ridiculous, but that doesn’t mean that the winner wouldn’t have been the winner fair and square.

 

[Danyaalr01]

Can we get stats on the dot ball percentage of New Zealand compared to other teams in this World Cup? I highly doubt that they would be at the top. Some of their batsmen are dreadful at working the singles and doubles.

I am talking about the final, where England faced more dot balls. I'm not saying that dot balls should be used as a tie breaker, but that if a team has hit more boundaries, they also have faced more dot balls, that is why using the boundary rule is not justified.

173 dot balls were faced by England in the final, compared to 160 by NZ.

The round robin doesn't matter in the final, also NZ generally played on more difficult pitches, whereas England got mostly flat pitches.

 

[Captain caveman]

I am talking about the final, where England faced more dot balls. I'm not saying that dot balls should be used as a tie breaker, but that if a team has hit more boundaries, they also have faced more dot balls, that is why using the boundary rule is not justified.

173 dot balls were faced by England in the final, compared to 160 by NZ.

The round robin doesn't matter in the final, also NZ generally played on more difficult pitches, whereas England got mostly flat pitches.

Very good point!!
When people try to claim england were more dominant because they hit more boundaries, have just been schooled!!
Well done sir!!

 

[Mamoon]

I am talking about the final, where England faced more dot balls. I'm not saying that dot balls should be used as a tie breaker, but that if a team has hit more boundaries, they also have faced more dot balls, that is why using the boundary rule is not justified.

173 dot balls were faced by England in the final, compared to 160 by NZ.

The round robin doesn't matter in the final, also NZ generally played on more difficult pitches, whereas England got mostly flat pitches.

Very good point!!
When people try to claim england were more dominant because they hit more boundaries, have just been schooled!!
Well done sir!!

No one is suggesting that England was more dominant or not. They simply won the game according to the rules. We can debate the merit of the rule, but it applied to both teams.

England got some poor pitches too. The one against Sri Lanka was awful, and the England vs New Zealand (group match) was slow, but England batted really well and New Zealand played like cowards, scoring 186 in 45 overs while chasing 306.

 

[Majestic_Inzi]

Yeah, they will.

It should have been done on wickets lost and no spurious super over. But if there was no super over, Stokes would have played differently. Maybe holed out swinging, maybe got over the line with a six. Who knows?

The Gods were kind to England on Sunday. Many other times, they have been cruel to England. Maybe they will be kind to NZ next time. I would be happy to see that.

how differently? NZ couldnt make 7 off 4 bowls with the field in at the super over, what makes you sure Eng would have won.

NZ were robbed.