England win World Cup final in thrilling super over finish against New Zealand

Look up Super Over/Oopse on wiki. It has list of matches that used the Oopse including ones that ended in a tie and boundary count was used to break the tie.

........knock me over with a feather. And all this time we Aussies had been led to believe that NZ is a bastion of rare virtue. Thank you for that CUW, we need more of these myth busters, to be sure.

.......keep up the good work Neil. They are most adept, these NZ'ers at the double standard, that said they have very good teachers.

.......this logic is something Kiwis take great exception to, when applied to their Rugby Union DNA et el......

........good one Chris.

........interesting comment. I reckon there are a significant number of Kiwis accessing this site, always have because it has long facilitated comment throughout our Union community. As we well know, Union only exists on the strength of a large NZ diaspora here, so it follows that a disproportionate number of NZ'ers frequent this site.

.......I would replace NZ with India every time.....

......never said it was the same but both were employed and integral to the rules of Cricket. I only pose the possibility that a brief diversion and reprieve from a pious Kiwi collective, may be realised, if only for a while.

.......I would have thought the same re the India chase v the Kiwis Gerry. I reckon you are diminishing the great bowling and fielding of NZ. They are certainly wanting in the batting department but their bowling, fielding strategy led by a very fine captain, proved them worthy finalists and a force to be reckoned with. I predicted an early England batting collapse on the strength of their Indian encounter.

If its simply a half of Australia that have an understanding of it then what hope is there for us understanding either Rugby code, let alone knowing one of these exists......

What a great end to a great tournament. So the Word Cup count is as follows: Australia - 5 West Indies - 2 India - 2 Pakistan - 1 Sri Lanka - 1 England - 1*

Fair point, although Morgan maybe in a slightly grey area, in that he started playing in England long before Ireland were in contention for Test status. His mother is English, but he played under-19 WC for Ireland, so similarities to Archer. Agree we need to apply same standards to our own sports.

Maybe, but you never know what would have happened with those last two balls even if that was done. And it's a tough one, the umpires really would have had to go to the third umpire to determine if the batsmen had crossed at the time of the throw. And if they are going to do it there, then it means they would need to do it anytime there is ever overthrows that go for four, as I can't imagine that too often the umpires would be carefully monitoring whether batsmen had crossed at the moment the fieldsman released the ball.

For sure. Apart from losing consecutive tosses, you really did get the feeling their name was on it in the final.

I totally agree. That was largely my point above about finding it harder to support sportspeople who play for Australia because they were either lured here, or came themselves to help improve their sporting opportunities despite getting to that international level standard via their home country. So yes, someone like Archer would fall into that category for me, where I'd probably struggle to support them as much as an Aussie cricketer if the same happened in Australia. We don't tend to get that in Australian cricket, tends to happen more often in Olympic sports, but for England cricket is a big one. To me Morgan is an even worse example, because he actually played for Ireland, but then somehow moved across to playing for England. It's hard enough for nations like Ireland to improve their cricket to be able to compete at ODI and test level as it is. If they are going to lose any player who's good enough to be a top international player to England, that's going to make that even harder!

The point though, is that it's something that's almost impossible to take that out of the game without causing further ramifications that are worse than just the bad luck of a deflection running for four. Such a rule would have to have saved Smith from getting run out in the Semi, because the ball brushed his body before hitting the stumps. Massive luck for England there, no idea how the ball could sneak through his upper legs like that, quite incredible, but if it's dead ball when a throw hits the batsman, then that's not out. The fact that England still would have smashed Australia doesn't change whether the rule should apply there or not. I do find it funny that there are some things completely within the rules of cricket, and because they are within the rules, really, they are within the spirit also, but they've somehow over the years achieved some sort of stigma, so people just don't do it. If it wasn't just always a thing that batsmen just don't run off a deflection, then nobody would think twice about it, but it's "always" been like that, so if someone decided to do it now, they'd be seriously looked down on. (The Mankad is similar. If the batsman is out of his ground, the bowler should be able to run him out. Have a go at the batsman, not the bowler). Overthrows are always a risk when making a throw. Whether because nobody is backing up, the throw is bad, or the throw is good and hits the bat or stumps. In fact, there are so many situations where fieldsman hurl the ball at the stumps when the batsman is always going to be well in, and if they have a deflection off the batsman, bat or stumps that goes for runs, then it feels like it serves them right. Where there is a chance of a run out like that, you are still taking a risk of conceding overthrows, but it's a calculated risk. I don't think that's a rule we want to remove from the game, any more than it should be dead ball if a throw hits the stumps (with the batsman in) and the ball deflects away for overthrows.

Absolutely, there were plenty of other umpiring errors in the game. Ross Taylor given a dodgy LBW but they couldn't refer it. One could blame Guptil for using the review, but it's still a bad umpiring decision, the ball was well over. And you are right, nobody knows what the outcome of the remaining balls would have been. Rasheed would have been on strike, needing four off 2. Stokes would have taken off the moment the ball was bowled, and even if Rasheed missed it they'd have probably got a bye, unless he was out. Then Stokes needs a boundary off the last ball to win. Of course, Rasheed may well have whacked that ball he would have faced for four, or had a swing, taken an edge that flew past the keeper to the boundary. Or he might have got out requiring the #11 to come out and hit a boundary off the last ball to win. We just don't know. You can't just take the one run off and say NZ would have won. Change that moment, and everything after it changes. I must admit that, from the moment Butler managed to run out Smith with a throw that somehow slipped between Smith's fast moving thighs to run him out, it really felt like this was just England's tournament, and nothing was stopping them winning the trophy!

Chris you're better than that. You understand the game better than just about everyone else on this site. Edging a ball you played at (although maybe shouldn't have) has nothing to do with my point. There is of course a place for luck in the game be it through a dropped catch or a mistimed shot through a corden gap but runs resulting from a deflection when running between the wickets have no place on a wagon wheel. I'm pretty sure Ben Stokes and many others would agree.

But it has to be an act committed by a fielder It’s the wrong rule/there is no rule?!

Woke up this morning and England are still World Champs....as you were!