Has the dust settled yet on the World Cup final? Or is it still swirling around Lord’s since Martin Guptill’s fruitless final ball dive unsettled the sloped earth?
Many have only just gathered previously incoherent thoughts. Two days on, it’s still difficult to comprehend that the most dramatic set of circumstances in any game of cricket were saved for the sport’s biggest day.
But they did, and it will almost certainly never be bettered. That’s a somewhat depressing thought for cricket lovers, isn’t it? We’ve likely just seen the most multi-layered, entertaining game of our lifetime. Cricket’s been completed. What’s next?
But two days of dissecting the absolute zenith of the one-day game, it appears a significant set of fans haven’t covered themselves in much glory. Debate about the numerous controversies emanating from the game, quite rightly, have been debated to the full extent.
The Ben Stokes ricochet-six and especially the absurdly arbitrary tie-breaker are a source of dissension that will continue for years. Was it fair? No. Should the finish have been set out differently? Undeniably, yes (super overs until it’s done, in case you were wondering).
But wading through the countless reactions on social media and these very pages, it’s wholly apparent that a certain group of fans are struggling to grasp the fact that England are actually World Champions. The collapse merchants and big-stage crumblers are no more, and they’re cradling the World Cup trophy.
England are champions of the world. (Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images)
And that, it seems, doesn’t sit well with many (particularly Australians and Indians) whose altruistic outrage on behalf of New Zealand isn’t fooling anyone. They’re clinging to the controversy to discredit the win. The more it festers, the more they’ll convince themselves that England’s victory is tarnished, flawed, or the best one yet – that it ‘doesn’t count’.
Resentment at the result, of course, would pale if the result was flipped. Should Kane Williamson’s side have received the level of luck England enjoyed, the outrage machine would have fizzled far quicker, and the English told to accept it.
Perhaps the most ironic thing to emerge from Sunday’s final is that the people directly affected by cricket’s cruellest ever twist of fate have seemingly taken the result better than some fans.
Guptill, a ten-year veteran of the New Zealand ODI squad, now two-time loser in a final (the second of which he was devastatingly involved in the very last wicket) has accepted the loss and moved on. Jimmy Neesham, his teammate at the other end, joked a mere six hours after the final ball that kids should take up baking rather than cricket.
Yet Robbo83 and Kohlifan100 are still apoplectic that England have walked away with a trophy that, in their ever so humble opinion, ‘isn’t theirs’.
Williamson received universal praise for a most sporting reaction to the cruelest of cards dealt. He said: “The rules were there from the start we have to swallow that up and accept it”. But the same fans praising his humble, generous nature haven’t heeded his advice.
Again, debate about the controversy is completely valid. The laws in place that decided the result need examining, and almost certainly will be changed.
Many fans, too, have simultaneously debated the absurdity of the tiebreaker and also accepted England’s deserved place at the top of the cricketing tree.
But it’s undeniable that a certain set of fans have used the controversy as a handy veneer to begrudge the victors.
The rules, as Williamson noted, were in place before the game started. They didn’t jump out in front of the opposing teams at the final moment. Further, countback alternatives would have delivered the same result. Head-to-head record, or the team that finished higher on the table – both far more suitable tiebreaker options – would have still seen an England win.
Chris Woakes consoles the vanquished Kiwis after their World Cup thriller. (Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images)
But that’s by the by now. New Zealand were desperately unlucky, as we well know, and beyond their immense disappointment are completely right to feel a sense of pride with how they went about their tournament.
They haven’t begrudged England their victory, which in truth capped four year of dominance in the 50-over format. They’ve accepted the result, and so should those out there snarkily discrediting the win.
Be more like Kane. And Martin. And Jimmy. And to be frank, the whole of New Zealand.
Cari
Roar Rookie
It’s so easy to be a genius in retrospect but I never heard a whisper about the rules during the weeks before the final. The real winner of this match was the game of cricket itself and if that results in youngsters all over taking up the game then we are all winners.
HR
Roar Rookie
That's him.
charly_777
Guest
A global competition with over 141 countries is softball ... I recommend them!
Barry Crocker
Guest
I think you're onto something here. It's debatable if either apply in this circumstance, though am guessing a strong argument that it fits the 'overthrow' scenario. The 'wilful act' is a furphy which I imagine is for when a fielder kicks or hits the ball as opposed to 'throw'... Tried to scour the laws & couldn't find anything that really covers deflections off the batsman other than if they were arguably deliberate. Interesting that everyone is now a self appointed expert after the fact re the "run in progress if they had already crossed" clause. In 40 yrs of playing/coaching cricket, I'd have previously considered it to be 6 total runs in that circumstance. I can now think of scenarios why they have the clause so happy to say I've learnt something...
anon
Roar Pro
Yes Owen Morgan was wrong. Stats show that teams win 68% of the time batting first. Throughout the World Cup, the team chasing struggled more than the team that set a score.
Ken
Roar Rookie
Chris Woakes and the NZ captain showed a lot of class in the way they behaved. As for the result, it's just fortunate that this 50 over stuff is just the international version of beach cricket so who cares anyway ?
Scotty P
Roar Rookie
Mate, are you claiming to know more about cricket than Eoin Morgan? FYI, he wanted to bowl first if he had won the toss. Seems like anyone can get a Roar Pro status these days.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
David , 95 percent estimation is better than your sweeping generalization that the whole of NZ has accepted it per your concluding sentence. How would you know what percentage have accepted it outside of some general ambiguous guess. I would say quite a fair lot of kiwis don't accept it but can't do much about it and can't be bothered voicing it to satisfy English fans egos. Moreover several other one sided statements and conclusions and siting four years of english dominance sounds irrelevant when assessing whether a portion of people are disgruntled when the result was tied on runs scored . There is plenty more thats wrong with your fence sitting of facts and sweeping statements against Indian and Australian fans. "Be more like Kane. And Martin. And Jimmy. And to be frank, the whole of New Zealand." How would you know what the NZ public think as a whole.
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Its certainly more equitable to keep playing with more super overs until one side actually makes more runs than the other side . Not rocket science . Otherwise scores are level .
Pierro
Roar Rookie
No chance Sadly chris. ECB are known for changing rules to suit England only for the most part. Reducing the amount of resident years to 3 so the West Indian Archer could play is a prime example
Pierro
Roar Rookie
Not really James. Whats done is done but the scores were tied as another hard statistic. England did not make more runs than NZ and it certainly can’t draw comparisons to DL due to external circumstances such as rain or bad light . Its an extemely unique situation which is why it merits debate despite the ICC fine print which is clearly unacceptable for the future. The article also has some sweeping generalizations. I note Dav Whatmore has indicated a fair result would be to share the cup and tendulkar has passed comments. Are these legends of the game disgruntled , are you seriously saying tendulker is an example of the people the article is talking about as he has said the way it was decided needs changing and was not fair …but please make a general sweeping comment to put him down as well
James
Guest
Oh i like that! Its horribly unfair like a penalty shoot out in football but damn i love it for drama. And cant use the same bowler twice
James
Guest
Hey! found one of the people who the article was talking about
James
Guest
The thing they took credit for instigating was cheating. They are cheats and the worst of cheats as they got the new guy to do the actual cheating unlike basically every other instance of cheating done in cricket when it was the captain or a leadership guy who did the actual cheating. So they are cheats and cowards. And you can say many things about The Barmy Army songs but puerile isnt one of them. And even if they did have a puerile song it would still be infinity more appealing than 'Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi oi oi'
badmanners
Roar Rookie
50 years since man first walked on the moon? We all know that's BS!
Andrew Johnson
Guest
I missed the entire 2009 World Cup tell me all about it
Paulo
Roar Rookie
“If the boundary results from an overthrow or from the wilful act of a fielder, the runs scored shall be any runs for penalties awarded to either side and the allowance for the boundary and the runs completed by the batsmen, together with the run in progress if they had already crossed at the instant of the throw or act.” "Throw or Act" clearly reference the "Overthrow or "wilful act" of the fielder. no mention of a deflection by the batsman. Unless you think the wilful act could reference the deflection, which, being a wilful obstruction of the ball would be out? the fact the ICC have come out and said 'no comment kinda shows they got it wrong. Otherwise the ICC would come out and say, the batsman had crossed when the deflection happened, so the ruling was correct. If they could say this, they would. They cant, so they haven't.
Paulo
Roar Rookie
Then win the toss. England loss the toss, pathetic, they deserved to lose.
Exactly. If you want to move on, great, good for you. But what is it with people demanding people "move on, it's all over now". What fun is that? Here is my answer to those people - GET LOST. If I want to moan and groan for the next twenty years about the injustices in this game - then I will -- my choice. Don't like it? Stiff bikkies.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
There is another possibility (that won't happen tho). England could ask the ICC to change the result to joint winners.