Well that was tense wasn't it! Wow what a feeling, unbelievable roller coaster. Commiserations to NZ. Both teams gave it their all and couldn't be separated. Have to be honest even though we'd tied the scores initially I thought they'd won because we were all out. What a final. Someone mentioned earlier but I'd have also liked to have the tms commentary played over the sky/channel 4 pictures. I'm so used to the ramblings of tms but it was a good few balls behind the live coverage
Can someone please tell me why we got a six in the supurover when the ball hit stokes bat and went for a boundary, was it because they had already run two!
Yeah - 2 runs and 4 overthrows. Guess the other 4 are technically byes but they add it to the score as runs.
I'm not a cricket fan, but I did watch the whole match as I know it's not every day we get to a World Cup final, they are saying it's the best World Cup match ever, and definitely the best final ever, the game had so many twists and turns, I'm glad I watched it!
I don’t know any other sport that can do this. The twists and turns you get in cricket (at whatever length) are extraordinary and were perfectly exhibited in that last half hour or so.
Please can we have Ben Stokes as the next Prime Minister? Somewhat more inspiring than the oaf we’re about to get.
Just watching the “highlights” on Sky. They missed out completely the overthrows when Stokes dived with three balls left. Very odd, because that effectively won England the match. Anyone have any idea why?
Unbelievable game. So delighted we won but you have to feel for New Zealand as bar the overthrows or Boult stepping on the boundary they would have won. Cricket fan or not, that was just incredible to watch. @RookeryDad not looking so good for Somerset at Yorkshire. Told you there batting was rubbish and they went and got 500+!
Most odd. Deemed too controversial for polite society? It was a huge piece of luck for us. If the ball had stopped short of the boundary, questionable if we would/should have run the extra runs. I was impressed by Guptill’s instinctive sportsmanship in signalling six when Boult trod on the rope.
An extraordinary spectacle of the type which only cricket can provide. The crucial innings, I felt, was Buttler’s. Before him, v panicky. We could have lost 6 wickets in the first 10 overs & Root was reduced to mindless swishing. I suspect Morgan didn’t even see the fielder on the cover boundary (given his shout of No after he’d hit the ball). Buttler immediately made batting comfortable & calmed Stokes down. 160 odd with 6 wickets left looked a large amount of runs, regardless of overs left. Brilliant from Archer. In the super over but also his last 5 overs at the death. 1-22, I think. To win chasing was remarkable.
Bad day for the Cybermen. Essex getting stronger by the game, with Sir Alistair moving through the gears. Why no Leach?
Well done to England. Amazing game. Didn't know you could run two then a throw back, if it comes off the opponent to the boundary, would be added on to the run count. England get the most unlikely 6. Then before that Stokes is caught but the fielder treads on the boundary rope for another lucky 6. Two rare pieces of fortune. It was certainly England's day for sure. They tie the match, they tie the Super Over, but because England got more boundaries, they win. A very tight and technical win. But a win is a win, England are now World Champions, and rightly so.
Deciding the outcome on boundaries was a bit arbitrary. It would have been equally valid to have decided it on wickets taken, in which case NZ would have won. Why not another pair of Super Overs, with different players, analogous to penalty shootouts? Surely we couldn't have tied a third time.
And it seems that the umpire made an error with the overthrows, Stokes should have been awarded 5 runs not 6, and he wouldn't have been facing the penultimate ball.
To avoid the controversy of whether England should have been awarded 5 not 6 overthrows for the Stokes final over incident? https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/27191816/should-england-got-five-not-six-overthrows
I agree, it was arbitrary but the rules were made before the tournament, not just made up on the spur on the moment. England did get a wicket in the Super Over, so it could have been decided that way. England ended 15-0 and New Zealand ended 15-1. At least boundaries reward the side with attacking intent who are prepared to hit out.
Yep...it's pretty clear. England should have been awarded 5 not 6 runs. But that doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't have still won. Had 5 runs been awarded they would have needed 4 from the final two balls. There would have been a greater emphasis on getting a boundary rather than running for 2. You can never categorically say it cost NZ the World Cup, unless it was actually the final ball of the over. Either way, England got three amazing pieces of good fortune. The accidental deflection to the boundary, the mistake from the umpire and the 6 Stokes got when the fielder trod on the boundary rope instead of taking the catch. Massive difference had he not stepped back. I'd say that one incident enabled England to win. Had Stokes gone at that point, with no 6 awarded, I think NZ would have probably gone on to win.
Plus the wording of the law is a bit unclear as to whether 6 runs might have been the correct decision.. "crossed at the instant of the throw or act " A rule that needs re-wording me thinks.
I think it's clear. The batsman had to have crossed at the instant of the throw. By that I take it to mean the moment the ball left the fielders' hand. That would be the instant. They had not crossed when the fielder threw the ball. Throw or act doesn't really make it anymore confusing, it's just adding another element. It's not throw AND act, it's throw OR act. One or the other, not both.
Not when the throw took place. Only one run completed then. But I am inclined to think that the word 'act' is crucial as it was that act (the ball hitting Stokes' bat) which caused the overthrows. If Guptill had just thrown the ball straight to the boundary, then it should have been 1 + 4 even if a second run was completed while the ball was in the air.
Agreed - 10 incredibly lucky runs in the space of about 6 balls ? I had just about given up at that point. Fantastic to have won it. The only country to have won the Holy Trinity of world cups, footy, rugby and cricket !! And don't under estimate the pressure on the fielder and Buttler for that final ball...to pick up, accurate throw, collect and take out the stumps....would have been so easy to **** that up !
It's "throw", because that's what the fielder did. I think the word "act" is there to cover other eventualities, such as kicking the ball or getting the ball back in another way other than throwing the ball. In this incident the 19.8 rule covers exactly what the fielder did. He threw the ball back before the batsmen crossed, therefore the second run should not have counted. The rule is very clear. Not sure why there is such confusion.
Maybe that's true, but in the incident we are talking about, it can be totally ignored. The word "throw" is directly referred to in the rules, so the word "act" is irrelevant. Had the fielder kicked the ball over the boundary or it hit him and deflected over the boundary, then yes, the word "act" can be considered a little ambiguous, but that's not the case here.
