creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

[BWFC_Insane]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.

Its like goal difference - I guess. I think so long as its clear and both sides know - and going out for the superovers the umpires confirmed to each side that if scores were tied it was down to boundaries which were so heavily in England's favour....they knew what the situation was.

[jimbo]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.

It kind of is though, and irrelevant as to the outcome of the match. If a batting side gets 24 runs off 24 balls in 6 fours, four sixes or 24 ones, which is best? 6 fours according to the rules of the contest just gone, but I can’t really see a difference. You could argue that the side facing most dot balls deserves to lose as the bowling side have been better. One of the joys of cricket is it caters for people who can quietly accumulate like root and Williamson, while others deal in boundaries and chew up a load of dot balls.

I know the ‘them’s the rules argument’, but I highly doubt the players were even aware of the boundary rule until the super over itself. It certainly won’t have influenced what they were doing until then.

[jimbo]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.

Its like goal difference - I guess. I think so long as its clear and both sides know - and going out for the superovers the umpires confirmed to each side that if scores were tied it was down to boundaries which were so heavily in England's favour....they knew what the situation was.

Goal difference shows a team’s dominance over another. If 2 teams win every game, the one that wins them all 5-0 rather than 1-0 is more dominant. If England hit more boundaries, it means that NZ bowled more dot balls, which could again be used to argue they should win.

*I was jumping up and down like mad when we won, and am genuinely delighted by the way.

[jimbo]

Dujon’s right about the flukey nature of the win. For me it’s all about celebrating an incredible game of cricket and sporting drama. It’s lovely having our name on the trophy but I do feel for New Zealand. In all previous tournaments the trophy would have been shared in the event of a tie. In other iterations of the game we’d have lost after 50overs on account of losing more wickets. In the end we won based on outperforming NZ in a metric that would have had absolutely no place in the minds of the players or fans as the game progressed. It’s incredibly random.

Really pleased for the squad though. Lots of hard work and effort have seen them completely turn it around in odi’s in the last 4 years. The core of the squad can stay together for a while as well.

Both sides knew the rules. I don't think that really is an issue. Had we known it was "wickets lost" stokes would have tried to smash that last ball to the boundary instead of playing for 1 and gambling on 2...

I think where NZ could be more aggrieved is that the Stokes' deflection was awarded 6 when the rules state it should have been 5. Even then of course had Stokes known that he might have tried to hit a boundary and might have succeeded - so you can't say that cost NZ the game.

But yeah - a very horrible and unlucky way to win. But the best team in the tournament won. And I think had that been on a proper pitch the margin would have been much greater.

Re last paragraph - the best team for the last 4 years won. We really were deserving winners. It’s just the eventual methodology of finding the winner that I find a little unusual.

[Montreal Wanderer]

It was certainly an exciting final, but a strangely unsatisfying way to win. Both sides may have known the third tie-break rule but I doubt anyone thought it would come to that or had counted the boundaries before the super over. Like Dujon, I find it a bit weird. The game doesn't really lend itself to these sudden death deciders - I mean it's not cricket.

[Worthy4England]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.

Its like goal difference - I guess. I think so long as its clear and both sides know - and going out for the superovers the umpires confirmed to each side that if scores were tied it was down to boundaries which were so heavily in England's favour....they knew what the situation was.

I think it needs changing - it's not a particularly enamouring way to finish a World Cup off. Point is, it was the rule when we won it and no bugger was complaining about it before hand. Nor do I think that particular rule was a "fluke" - it was no fluke that England's batsmen hit more boundaries than New Zealand's. They'd hit more consistently throughout the tournament. There was plenty England were flukey about - that rule, not one of them IMO.

I'm also with you that to say NZ would've won it on wickets lost is also subjective - would Wood and Rashid have run for second runs, had that been the rule? Who knows - I suspect not (acknowledging that "not" would've put different striker on strike)

[BWFC_Insane]

And as much as NZ were unlucky - they have to look at themselves. Santner ducking under the last ball of their innings has to be up there amongst the most idiotic of things to do in a one day game ever. Had he had any contact he might have smuggled another crucial run. Had he got lucky and top edged it somewhere then the game would have been well beyond England even with the "overthrows".

[jimbo]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.

Its like goal difference - I guess. I think so long as its clear and both sides know - and going out for the superovers the umpires confirmed to each side that if scores were tied it was down to boundaries which were so heavily in England's favour....they knew what the situation was.

I think it needs changing - it's not a particularly enamouring way to finish a World Cup off. Point is, it was the rule when we won it and no bugger was complaining about it before hand. Nor do I think that particular rule was a "fluke" - it was no fluke that England's batsmen hit more boundaries than New Zealand's. They'd hit more consistently throughout the tournament. There was plenty England were flukey about - that rule, not one of them IMO.

I'm also with you that to say NZ would've won it on wickets lost is also subjective - would Wood and Rashid have run for second runs, had that been the rule? Who knows - I suspect not (acknowledging that "not" would've put different striker on strike)

True about the wickets lost thing. But I guess we had to take those risks to try to get close anyway and ensure Stokes was back on strike.

I agree that our game has been built on power and hitting boundaries for the last 4 years. I think it just reflects a difference in styles of play rather than effectiveness or ability though, and shouldn’t be a way to decide a final. You could argue that our batting was worse and NZ more dominant with the ball as we chewed up more dot balls. In that sense I think it is arbitrary - someone has decided that scoring 250 and hitting 40boundaries is one deserving of winning than A team scoring 250 with 39 boundaries.

It’s a bit like a football match being level after 90mins, drawing penalties 5-5 and then the game being decided by ‘most balls into the box’.

[jimbo]

And as much as NZ were unlucky - they have to look at themselves. Santner ducking under the last ball of their innings has to be up there amongst the most idiotic of things to do in a one day game ever. Had he had any contact he might have smuggled another crucial run. Had he got lucky and top edged it somewhere then the game would have been well beyond England even with the "overthrows".

Oh yeah, there’s moments everywhere where the game could have turned slightly differently. There always is in tight games.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

And as much as NZ were unlucky - they have to look at themselves. Santner ducking under the last ball of their innings has to be up there amongst the most idiotic of things to do in a one day game ever. Had he had any contact he might have smuggled another crucial run. Had he got lucky and top edged it somewhere then the game would have been well beyond England even with the "overthrows".

Oh yeah, there’s moments everywhere where the game could have turned slightly differently. There always is in tight games.

Christ! Don't tell him that! He's always right... I mean Always.

He can probably reel off the greatest player of all time, in cricket, tennis, croquet, football, baseball, dominoes and poker just like that.

[Worthy4England]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.

It kind of is though, and irrelevant as to the outcome of the match. If a batting side gets 24 runs off 24 balls in 6 fours, four sixes or 24 ones, which is best? 6 fours according to the rules of the contest just gone, but I can’t really see a difference. You could argue that the side facing most dot balls deserves to lose as the bowling side have been better. One of the joys of cricket is it caters for people who can quietly accumulate like root and Williamson, while others deal in boundaries and chew up a load of dot balls.

I know the ‘them’s the rules argument’, but I highly doubt the players were even aware of the boundary rule until the super over itself. It certainly won’t have influenced what they were doing until then.

Yes and No on part 1 - directionally, cricket has been heading towards wham/bam type of games in the one day/short game formats. So it's probably not a coincidence that they came up with a rule (not sure competition format are "laws" ) that leans in that direction. Let's be honest outside a few purists, watching someone with fck all attacking intent bores the arse off most folks - even though I'm often hollering for someone to calm it down for a few overs in England games. Jeez we've even gone into some Cup games (when I was playing) with the intent of keeping a slow scoring nudger in for as long as possible to put them behind on scoring rate. They weren't scoring at anything like Roots strike rate of pushing 90 - otherwise we'd have wanted them outta the road!

[Montreal Wanderer]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.

It kind of is though, and irrelevant as to the outcome of the match. If a batting side gets 24 runs off 24 balls in 6 fours, four sixes or 24 ones, which is best? 6 fours according to the rules of the contest just gone, but I can’t really see a difference. You could argue that the side facing most dot balls deserves to lose as the bowling side have been better. One of the joys of cricket is it caters for people who can quietly accumulate like root and Williamson, while others deal in boundaries and chew up a load of dot balls.

I know the ‘them’s the rules argument’, but I highly doubt the players were even aware of the boundary rule until the super over itself. It certainly won’t have influenced what they were doing until then.

Yes and No on part 1 - directionally, cricket has been heading towards wham/bam type of games in the one day/short game formats. So it's probably not a coincidence that they came up with a rule (not sure competition format are "laws" ) that leans in that direction. Let's be honest outside a few purists, watching someone with fck all attacking intent bores the arse off most folks - even though I'm often hollering for someone to calm it down for a few overs in England games. Jeez we've even gone into some Cup games (when I was playing) with the intent of keeping a slow scoring nudger in for as long as possible to put them behind on scoring rate. They weren't scoring at anything like Roots strike rate of pushing 90 - otherwise we'd have wanted them outta the road!

Was that the day you dropped three catches and bowled underarm?

[Worthy4England]

^^ proper nudgers don't get the bugger in the air long enough for anyone to catch them. There was twice we didn't appeal even though they were out LBW

[BWFC_Insane]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.

Its like goal difference - I guess. I think so long as its clear and both sides know - and going out for the superovers the umpires confirmed to each side that if scores were tied it was down to boundaries which were so heavily in England's favour....they knew what the situation was.

I think it needs changing - it's not a particularly enamouring way to finish a World Cup off. Point is, it was the rule when we won it and no bugger was complaining about it before hand. Nor do I think that particular rule was a "fluke" - it was no fluke that England's batsmen hit more boundaries than New Zealand's. They'd hit more consistently throughout the tournament. There was plenty England were flukey about - that rule, not one of them IMO.

I'm also with you that to say NZ would've won it on wickets lost is also subjective - would Wood and Rashid have run for second runs, had that been the rule? Who knows - I suspect not (acknowledging that "not" would've put different striker on strike)

True about the wickets lost thing. But I guess we had to take those risks to try to get close anyway and ensure Stokes was back on strike.

I agree that our game has been built on power and hitting boundaries for the last 4 years. I think it just reflects a difference in styles of play rather than effectiveness or ability though, and shouldn’t be a way to decide a final. You could argue that our batting was worse and NZ more dominant with the ball as we chewed up more dot balls. In that sense I think it is arbitrary - someone has decided that scoring 250 and hitting 40boundaries is one deserving of winning than A team scoring 250 with 39 boundaries.

It’s a bit like a football match being level after 90mins, drawing penalties 5-5 and then the game being decided by ‘most balls into the box’.

Not sure I agree about reflecting "differences in style of play". NZ and Afghanistan were the only two teams not to make a 300 + score in the tournament at all. Whilst NZ had a superb bowling line up to compensate - their batting was - without doubt - not that good.

England had an equally good (statistically better) bowling line up and made a number of scores about 300.

Its like in football having Barcelona face Hull - but play it on a mudbath of a pitch in Ireland - with no grass on it. Barca might well lose that - because the terrible pitch levels the ability.

To me yesterday all that pitch did was level the ability of the two sides because ultimately rubbishy dibbly dobbler NZ bowler CDG was unplayable in the middle overs. Sure NZ are good in those conditions. But the pitch took away the ability to hit the ball. And whilst purists may love it - there can be no doubt that ODI cricket has moved away from that sort of game being rewarded.....

[jimbo]

How many boundaries you scored in an innings is not arbitrary - it's down to the skill of the batting side vs the skill of the fielding side.

Its like goal difference - I guess. I think so long as its clear and both sides know - and going out for the superovers the umpires confirmed to each side that if scores were tied it was down to boundaries which were so heavily in England's favour....they knew what the situation was.

I think it needs changing - it's not a particularly enamouring way to finish a World Cup off. Point is, it was the rule when we won it and no bugger was complaining about it before hand. Nor do I think that particular rule was a "fluke" - it was no fluke that England's batsmen hit more boundaries than New Zealand's. They'd hit more consistently throughout the tournament. There was plenty England were flukey about - that rule, not one of them IMO.

I'm also with you that to say NZ would've won it on wickets lost is also subjective - would Wood and Rashid have run for second runs, had that been the rule? Who knows - I suspect not (acknowledging that "not" would've put different striker on strike)

True about the wickets lost thing. But I guess we had to take those risks to try to get close anyway and ensure Stokes was back on strike.

I agree that our game has been built on power and hitting boundaries for the last 4 years. I think it just reflects a difference in styles of play rather than effectiveness or ability though, and shouldn’t be a way to decide a final. You could argue that our batting was worse and NZ more dominant with the ball as we chewed up more dot balls. In that sense I think it is arbitrary - someone has decided that scoring 250 and hitting 40boundaries is one deserving of winning than A team scoring 250 with 39 boundaries.

It’s a bit like a football match being level after 90mins, drawing penalties 5-5 and then the game being decided by ‘most balls into the box’.

Not sure I agree about reflecting "differences in style of play". NZ and Afghanistan were the only two teams not to make a 300 + score in the tournament at all. Whilst NZ had a superb bowling line up to compensate - their batting was - without doubt - not that good.

England had an equally good (statistically better) bowling line up and made a number of scores about 300.

Its like in football having Barcelona face Hull - but play it on a mudbath of a pitch in Ireland - with no grass on it. Barca might well lose that - because the terrible pitch levels the ability.

To me yesterday all that pitch did was level the ability of the two sides because ultimately rubbishy dibbly dobbler NZ bowler CDG was unplayable in the middle overs. Sure NZ are good in those conditions. But the pitch took away the ability to hit the ball. And whilst purists may love it - there can be no doubt that ODI cricket has moved away from that sort of game being rewarded.....

There’s no doubt we batted better throughout the tournament but that wasn’t my argument, nor was the quality of the pitch. The joy of cricket is having to find ways to win in different conditions.

Both teams scored the same number of runs in the game, in the same amount of time, at the same run rate. That NZ accumulated them generally in 1s and 2s and England did so by hitting more boundaries reflects a different approach reaching the same end result. On the day there was nothing to split the two batting sides.

[TANGODANCER]

I'm actually wondering if anybody ( especially players and team captains ) was actually aware of all these rules before the possibility of a draw loomed into view? I keep getting this mental image of a load of "Lords of the striped blazers" frantically leafing through the rules of "The W.G.Grace What if" manual? and panicking at the possibility of having to toss a coin to decide the winner?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Who had the most players not born in their own country seems to be the determinating factor. In England's case 1/3 - obviously a winning proportion.

[Prufrock]

If it's players who *were* born in that country, NZ had 12/11!

[Worthy4England]

They can fcuk off on that one, too.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

If it's players who *were* born in that country, NZ had 12/11!

150 players in World Cup 2019 by country of birth:
17 South Africa
16 India
16 Pakistan
15 Afghanistan
15 Bangladesh
15 Sri Lanka
14 Australia
13 New Zealand
10 England
6 Barbados
5 Jamaica
4 Trinidad & Tobago
1 Guyana
1 Ireland
1 Wales
1 Zimbabwe

Saarf Afrika shoulda stormed it.