New Zealand were beaten by the rules, not by England.
In the greatest ODI match of all time, between two fine teams that scrapped like pitbulls, the scorebook could not separate the Kiwis and England in the World Cup final.
There were two ties yesterday – 241 vs 241 in the 50-over component of the match, followed by 15 vs 15 in the super over. But, as per ICC rules, a winner had to be decided at this point and so it was England who triumphed.
England did not deserve to win yet they also earned this World Cup victory. That’s a weird sentence, isn’t it?
Then again, this is the weirdest scenario to unfold in my 30 years of following cricket. So let me explain.
The Kiwis were dudded by two very-rarely enacted rules, which are illogical and should be changed, and also potentially by an umpiring error in the application of one of those odd rules.
England, though, didn’t make these rules, they didn’t break any rules and they spent four years excelling in ODIs to get to this moment. That luck fell in their favour is not their fault.
England are worthy World Cup champions.
It is unfortunate that some nonsensical ICC rules have grabbed a hefty share of the focus in the wake of this phenomenal game. But there is no ignoring this issue, even if the magnanimous Kiwi team are trying to do so.
The ICC are incredibly lucky the team on the receiving end of last night’s comical ending was New Zealand, the only team in world cricket likely to let it slide.
Imagine, for a moment, the earth-rattling furore that would be unfolding right now if this had happened to Australia, India or England themselves?
I find it very hard to believe we wouldn’t have seen livid protestations on the field by players from those teams.
Can you picture the likes of David Warner, Virat Kohli or Eoin Morgan keeping their cool in the same circumstances and just shrugging it off like NZ captain Kane Williamson has? Not a chance.
(Photo by Action Foto Sport/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
They would have very colourfully expressed their disgust at two rules that make no sense – punishing the blameless fielding side for a deflection caused by a running batsman, and arbitrarily using boundaries scored as the sole decider in a countback, instead of the number of wickets or dot balls or singles or twos or threes or sneezes or any other randomly-determined factor.
Then I can easily imagine lawyers for the big three cricket boards getting involved once it emerged the umpires may have butchered their decision on the Stokes bat deflection overthrows, as reported by ESPNCricinfo yesterday.
Australia’s players, coaches, board and media would have gone into meltdown if they were robbed like the Kiwis. The Board for Cricket Control in India (BCCI) would have lost the plot – who knows have far they would have taken this issue?
And for those English fans trying to write off the effect of these illogical rules, to claim it’s all white noise, consider what would have gone down if the roles had been reversed.
After four years of building to their first World Cup, if England had one foot in the winner’s circle only to have a sequence of questionable rules rob them of victory? The UK would still be shaking, as if the earth had ruptured under the kingdom.
English players would be crying foul, their media would be cutting loose, their fans would be screaming bloody murder and the ECB would be exploring its options.
And they’d all be justified in doing so. Because what happened was simultaneously fair and unjust.
The rules were known before the match and were the same for both teams. That’s fair. But the deflection rule is categorically unjust.
The Kiwis made no error in that scenario, so how can they possibly be penalised four runs for Ben Stokes’ actions?
When this same situation unfolds, with a throw deflecting off the fielder but not going to the boundary, the batsmen do not run. It is accepted at all levels of cricket that you do not run on a deflection because it is not fair, because the fielding side made no mistake.
Why, then, should this change just because the ball deflects all the way to the boundary. What is to stop a crafty batsman who sees the ball coming towards him in his peripheral vision from extending his bat to deflect the ball for runs, while giving the impression he’s just stretching for his crease?
It is a rule that must be changed immediately. The ball should be dead in such circumstances. England get the two runs they completed and nothing more.
There is also a need to change the super over countback rule. It is folly to make the arbitrary decision that, when scores are tied, the team with the most boundaries is worthier of victory. The ICC needs to review this rule and come up with an alternative that actually makes sense.
OK, time to catch my breath. That was quite a rant.
But, you have to understand, those of us who stayed up to watch every over of this exhilarating final experienced emotions that won’t make sense to the rest of you.
Never before have I had the same feeling of an injustice being done, of a worthy cricket team being robbed like this. It just felt so, so wrong.
Yet it also shouldn’t detract from what England have achieved. Their transformation as an ODI side over the past four years has been remarkable.
After 20 years of mediocrity in this format they overhauled their approach to 50-over cricket, rose to No.1 in the rankings, thrashed Australia in a World Cup semi-final and then fought for their existence in a classic final.
Right now this match is shrouded in controversy. But over time that will change and it will be remembered fondly as the greatest ODI in history.
Congratulations England. Commiserations New Zealand. Lift your game ICC.
Andy D
Guest
England were handed an extra run too many in overthrows, as the batsmen had not crossed as the throw came in, so extra run and Stokes on strike which he shouldn't have been. Its a comedy of errors, it should have been a NZ win to be fair, but at a minimum - a draw. Too late now, but this final will always be remembered for those things. And yes also for being a thrilling game.
Sean Farrelly
Roar Rookie
Super overs are silly. Just apply the Duckworth-Lewis system which is universally accepted.
Bing
Guest
No, Nick Seymore and Paul Hester were both born in Australia. I bet you claim Sam Neil, Irene Van Dyke and Grant Elliot as kiwis as well? Pot.kettle.black.
Nick
Roar Guru
What? My stance: the game has never decided ties by wickets lost? Yes, it's ridiculous to state a fact. Back to your cave, son.
Neel
Roar Guru
It’s a tough one to accept Ronan, but in the end, life goes on. I’m proud of the way carried themselves through that situation. Kane Williamson is a class act. I honestly wonder what he is made of sometimes. Not many things seem to bother the guy. They are a wonderful team and there are plenty of positive signs for the Blackcaps in the future.
ClarkeG
Roar Guru
Says the man doing the "harking".
lapsedcyclist
Roar Rookie
NZ Best result Runners-up (2015, 2019) Look forward to 2023...
deepoz
Roar Rookie
Robbed, may be too strong a word. All teams knew the conditions before the start of the tournament. So no one was robbed. Agree, that the count back on boundaries is not ideal. I would personally prefer number of wickets lost since that indicates which side has played better or which one has been weaker on the day. It is nothing new that the rub of the green in any part of the world, even after neutral umpires, has by and large gone with the home team. In this case, of course, I am not counting the "error of judgement" made by the umpires in giving 6 instead of 5. The fact that different umpires judge close LBW call differently today than before has a significant role to play also. Jason Roy's LBW was lot more close to not being an Umpire's call than Kohli's. But was judged differently by two umpires. That needs to change. I believe, if ICC has confidence in ball tracking technology (I still do not) then they should rule ANY ball even touching the stumps or bail, as OUT. I know there is some instrument "tolerance" in prediction of the path, but so be it, as long as it is consistent right across the cricket playing world. Also Ronan, I am not sure about your comments about England, India or Australian teams not being able to accept such a defeat as gracefully as Kiwis have done (and kudos to them). It is unfair to judge these players based on their aggressive nature and propose they would have behaved badly on the ground. Sorry, that's one under the belt and probably a presumption worse than saying that Kiwis would have won if umpires had given only 5 and sent Stokes to the non-striker end. Do agree, though, that its all fair in love and ranting! :-)
bugo
Guest
None is under any obligation to continue a debate with your ridiculous stance.
Nick
Roar Guru
There's that deflection again. You're not the lone voice of sanity in the wilderness, sheek. People are allowed to disagree with you. Try actually addressing people's responses instead of condescending them with "agree to disagree" responses.
Nick
Roar Guru
Why? Because the pitch has deteriorated. It is harder to bat on, thus wickets more likely to be conceded. That's fairly obvious.
Nick
Roar Guru
Ah... ignoring the "deflection" aspect comment. I have read many posts of yours. SOP for you is when presented with an argument you can't counter, you deflect... and then post some libertarian clap trap not relevant to any of your initial points.
FunBus
Roar Rookie
I was rubbish at both, Piru, so I have no such bias.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Totally agree on the playing Super Overs until they get a result. I’ve seen it before somewhere where after the first tied super overs, the sides then send out two new batsmen and a new bowler. Maybe make it so each side nominates three bowlers and six batsmen, and then they cycle through them. Or maybe instead of a Super Over, make it a five-over shoot out. And then if it’s still tied, go to unlimited Super Over.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
It can be equally argued that Boult was warmed up. Imagine how hard it is to come onto bowl such a crucial over when you haven't rolled your arm over for three hours. You've got to be immediately on the spot. And also, it makes little difference to the batting team, as they only have to wait an over before they're back on anyway. So, there's pros and cons. Thus I reckon they should toss a coin. And keep playing Super Overs until they get a result!
Gerry
Roar Rookie
No not a way to decide as team that loses all its wickets is doing everything to get more runs. So you could say NZ did not go out enough to do this. So number of wickets is not a good decider in ties. However if you used this as a decider in the super over perhaps there could be a case and as you know England would have won in that one.
No you certainly cannot. As I said, Wisden will name England the winner. But what you will never get the likes of me to add to that is, "deservedly so". They are undeservedly the winners via a mixture of poor umpiring and an obscure technicality, and yes, nothing can change that.
sheek
Roar Guru
spruce moose, "That's textbook deflection of the argument". Sorry, NOT following the textbook is one of my flaws. You've read my stuff long enough on The Roar, you should know this. Thinking like everyone else is rarely my go.
Chris Kettlewell
Roar Guru
Zozza, when I say you can't revisit it after the fact, I mean you can't retrospectively deduct that run from England and call it a win for NZ, because the result of that ball changes how the other two balls to follow would have been played. So if the call isn't fixed before the next ball, we have to live with it. I'm totally for revisiting it as far as going over the things that went wrong and trying to work out ways in the future to stop those from happening. Just saying you can't retrospectively just deduct that run and call NZ the winner.
Jibba Jabba
Roar Guru
Heh Bing, you do realise that one of those 2 Australians was English....but heh, don't let the facts ...