usha manohar wrote:

Saurav Banerjee wrote:

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Although England won, everyones heart went out to the NewZeland team because they were more than equal and deserved to win. Luck played a great factor for Englands win.

Not luck, ICC favor England. Most of cricket lovers and even players don't know about rule of most boundries. 

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Saurav Banerjee wrote:

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Although England won, everyones heart went out to the NewZeland team because they were more than equal and deserved to win. Luck played a great factor for Englands win.

Not luck, ICC favor England. Most of cricket lovers and even players don't know about rule of most boundries. 

ICC favours no one, the rule was already known to the Cricketing Experts, however it was criticized because of it's not so good point. The thing that this issue came up in the final has sparked off the debate, if it was any other less intense and not significant match, it would have gone under the carpet for sure.

usha manohar wrote:

Saurav Banerjee wrote:

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Although England won, everyones heart went out to the NewZeland team because they were more than equal and deserved to win. Luck played a great factor for Englands win.

Most of them should have felt the same.After New Zealand posted it's score, I was like, it is okay if we are playing against other teams, but it is England.

However New Zealand again gave it's all and should have actually won it, though it might have been by a less margin. However that unlucky boundary which resulted in 4 extra runs proved fatal for the team.

New Zealand deserved every bit of the Cup as much as England, probably even more, but can't do much about the rule now.

Love Kane for his Captaincy skills and his beyond the imagination cool head and humble persona, most of them from New Zealand might be like that.

I like him more than the Indian counterparts, though Country to Country different things are required to grow.

Ben Strokes had requested the umpire to disallow the runs as he had redirected the ball to the boundary while diving to avoid the run-out. But umpires did not agreed to him and that was that. Sorry for NZ, I would have given the WC to both of these teams or given it to the team that lost lesser wickets in their allotted 50 overs.

One more thing is that the awarded 6 runs were wrong, only 5 runs should have been awarded, as at the point of deflection, The bat hadn't crossed the crease.

Hence 4+1 run should have been awarded is what even former Umpire's were saying.

epraneeth77 wrote:

anil wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Saurav Banerjee wrote:

Although India did not feature, still the match played between New Zealand and England was the best ever world cup final I have ever seen. It was thrilling and engrossing till the very end. We also witnessed the first ever super over in the ODIs. However, having said all that, I felt the super over also getting tied was not only dramatic but unfortunate at the same time. Felt sad for the Black Caps as they finally lost the match on the boundaries count. I felt there should have been one more super over in order to decide a clear and deserving winner. In other sports like tennis we have tie-breakers, and it goes on till the winner is decided. Similarly, in football we have tie-breaks as well, and even sudden deaths if required. Therefore, ICC should give a close look at their rules for further clarity in the future matches.

Although England won, everyones heart went out to the NewZeland team because they were more than equal and deserved to win. Luck played a great factor for Englands win.

Not luck, ICC favor England. Most of cricket lovers and even players don't know about rule of most boundries. 

ICC favours no one, the rule was already known to the Cricketing Experts, however it was criticized because of it's not so good point. The thing that this issue came up in the final has sparked off the debate, if it was any other less intense and not significant match, it would have gone under the carpet for sure.

Earlier this rule was not used in tied matches, If I am not wrong India and New Zealand played tie match in last worldcup. At that time teams share points.

That was not in finals, even here I think if there was a tie in group stage, points would have been shared, though I am not completely sure.

epraneeth77 wrote:

That was not in finals, even here I think if there was a tie in group stage, points would have been shared, though I am not completely sure.

Most of cricket lovers don't agree with this decision. It would be better if both shared trophy.

epraneeth77 wrote:

That was not in finals, even here I think if there was a tie in group stage, points would have been shared, though I am not completely sure.

As per the rules of this edition of the world cup (as far as I know), there would have been a super over in place if there was a tie in the league stages as well.

anil wrote:

epraneeth77 wrote:

That was not in finals, even here I think if there was a tie in group stage, points would have been shared, though I am not completely sure.

Most of cricket lovers don't agree with this decision. It would be better if both shared trophy.

True, either both of them should have shared the trophy or another super over should have been contested.

Alternatively, I thought of bowl out option.

New Zealanders would have felt hard done by the result.