SA Footy

Armchair expert wrote:Game over kiwis need 16

Yep, draw won’t even be good enough thanks to some Mickey Mouse rules

Need 5 wides first ball

Neesham on strike? They aren't taking this seriously.

I'm not sure a super over is the best way to get a result, but can't think of a better solution

That's why .... boom

Jofra showing nerves for the first time. Neesham is going to do this.

Oh boy need 2 off the last to win

Ahh ******* bullshit finish

poms kissed on the dick

Good to see a real minnow win a World Cup

Well done to the united nations

That's bullshit ..... should be another super over. If you are going to give the win to the higher ranked side, why not do it after 50 overs or just keep doing super overs until you have a winner.

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:That's bullshit ..... should be another super over. If you are going to give the win to the higher ranked side, why not do it after 50 overs or just keep doing super overs until you have a winner.

England won because they hit the most boundaries not because they finished higher.
The whole super over is crap anyway, England were bowled out and NZ only lost 6 wickets. That should be the decider

Honestly doesnt feel great winning that way, kiwis were the better side and we had some huge slices of fortune towards the end. However just an unbelievable game and hats of the kiwis. Stokes you are a star also.

Jim05 wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:That's bullshit ..... should be another super over. If you are going to give the win to the higher ranked side, why not do it after 50 overs or just keep doing super overs until you have a winner.

England won because they hit the most boundaries not because they finished higher.
The whole super over is crap anyway, England were bowled out and NZ only lost 6 wickets. That should be the decider

Fair point, so why not do it after 50 overs. At the end of the day England did not beat New Zealand

England were on the right side of the rules in play.

Ridiculous way to end it though, surely any other way than a boundary countback would have been more suitable.

-Second Super Over
-Replay the game.
-Least wickets lost
-Previous head to head meeting
-Who finished higher in the group stage ladder.

Pretty much anything but boundary countback.

8/241 beats 10/241, surely.

Should've been a replay.

One thing I've appreciated about it being in England, the scores haven't been ridiculous.

The great thing everyone seems to have appreciated about the World Cup is there has been a real contest, it didn't become 20-20 cricket extended over 50 overs - some big runs were scored, other times bowling and low scoring created great games.

But it was decided by two playing conditions introduced specifically for the limitations of 20-20 cricket, and not considering one-day cricket is more diverse.

That's just not right.

Lightning McQueen wrote:Should've been a replay.

Agree. It’s the final not a round game