World Cup semis & final, July 9-14

[GarlicJam]

Probably head to head or group stage result should be the tiebreaker. But England won that anyway.

yes, sounds a far fairer way. But, as you say, that would have handed the title to England regardless.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I would have sent out Roy with Buttler, mainly cos Stokes looked tired. We may have got 20 if we had!

That's what I was thinking. And for all Stokes batted effectively, he wasn't timing much. Sending him out felt a bit reflex.

But it worked.

Just.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Celebrate lads :pint

I'm off for a hour or so kip ...if I can sleep after that ! Cheers :thumb

How will they feel in NZ? Stayed up all night watching a game that overshot by an hour. Lost on a technicality and then they have to go to work. Shearing all those sheep and whatever else.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Just remembered Santner ducked the final ball of NZ's innings. One of many fine margins that came back to haunt NZ.

Buttler let 4 byes roll past him at one point

Should've been a dot ball

It was Trent Boult stepping on the boundary rope that will haunt them. With another fielder waiting for a knock on.

And in another way, Ben Stokes diverting overthrows to the rope.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Just read btl somewhere that Morgan is retiring.

[sussexpob]

The overthrows were a freak incident, but many of those can happen; it's part of the game and it clearly wasn't stokes meaning it.

The method of victory would upset me as a kiwi, but someone has to win. This idea I've seen some places that it should be a tie....sorry, you can't have a tie in a world cup final.

You can't also have results in previous games as a tie breaker. Such things can decide leagues, but cannot decide one off games; it has to be something inside that game that seperates....I grant it, wickets should be the method, in fact I'd have no super over unless runs and wickets are tied (is NZ win).....but they chose boundaries, those the rules.

I imagine some rules will change after today...namely runs off the bat from overthrows, and maybe tiebreaker ones too.

You have to feel for the Kiwis......

[yuppie]

Well this is interesting...

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... overthrows

[Gingerfinch]

Needing four from two may have resulted in Stokes spanking it to the boundary for four, rather than him making sure he hit the penultimate ball?

[yuppie]

Who knows?

Just more drama to an already dramatic final.

[Gingerfinch]

Yeah who know's but we definitely had the luck with the overthrow.

Prior to yesterday, the 1999 Aussie-Saffa game was the best I had seen, and funnily enough both games had scores in the 200's.

[Arthur Crabtree]

The method of victory would upset me as a kiwi, but someone has to win. This idea I've seen some places that it should be a tie....sorry, you can't have a tie in a world cup final.
.

I read that in all previous WCs, it would have been a tie.

[yuppie]

Yeah who know's but we definitely had the luck with the overthrow.

Prior to yesterday, the 1999 Aussie-Saffa game was the best I had seen, and funnily enough both games had scores in the 200's.

I think it makes riveting cricket. I really hope that national boards are seeing the type of results they get from these type of pitches where the bowlers also get some help.

[sussexpob]

Well this is interesting...

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id ... overthrows

While its a nice fantasy for some journos to claim this is a story to add some narrative to play out, the fact is the law as I read it is pretty clear; the boundary is added, plus any "completed runs"...... Stokes completed two runs when the ball was live in play. The run "in progress" doesnt come into the situation, they are two distinct things. Had stokes picked himself up and got half way down past Rashid for a potential 7th, then that section of the rule would come into play.

[bigfluffylemon]

It's just occurred to me:

1966 football WC: extra time, slice of luck as the 3rd goal was adjudged to have crossed the line.
2003 rugby WC: extra time
2019 cricket: super over, tiebreaker

Could it have been any other way? England never make it easy for themselves, do they?

[sussexpob]

I read that in all previous WCs, it would have been a tie.

You cant play 11 games in a tournament and have no outright winner. Dont really care what went before, pretty much everysingle sport has a playoff, some form of shootout etc to win. They are in their nature arbitrary to find a winner, but no one is going to say Italy are joint winners of the 1994 World Cup because "it was only penalties"..... they lost, so did New Zealand. Those the rules.

Crap way to judge it, but it would be worse for the sport if its showpiece final had no winner. Id rather NZ won than share a trophy.

Obviously in cricket one has to factor in light. They cant keep playing super overs....most places near the equator get dark quickly, so time is of the essence.