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.
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
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.