I can vividly recall watching transfixed as South Africa contrived to squander a gilt-edged opportunity to advance to the World Cup final in 1999.
Just one run to win, one measly run, the player of the tournament on strike, and four balls in which to get over the winning line.
Anyone who follows cricket, and probably plenty who don’t (especially if they hail from the southern part of Africa) knows what happened next. An immediate thought was how, if at all possible, a contest of such drama, tension and emotional extremes would ever be matched.
Plenty have dubbed it the greatest limited overs game of all time in the 20 years since and that has been an opinion difficult to form an argument against.
Well, maybe now it has a rival.
England’s defeat of New Zealand in Sunday’s global showpiece – yes I know technically it was a tie and they won on countback so you needn’t bore me with the details – was a quite remarkable game, a superb advert for the 50-over format and, in simple terms, a ringing endorsement for the sport itself.
Plenty of matches ebb and flow with the winner less than apparent until deep into proceedings, but very few seemingly see the momentum shift on almost a ball-by-ball basis.
Chris Woakes consoles the vanquished Kiwis after their World Cup thriller. (Michael Steele/Getty Images)
Add to the melting pot a piece of good fortune so outlandish any half-decent scriptwriter would consider it far-fetched and a super over that only ratcheted up the tension and you have a sporting event for the ages.
From the moment Jos Buttler carved Lockie Ferguson to deep point at the end of the 45th over, when the Kiwis regained the ascendancy which has been slipping away, the task of picking a winner became a lottery.
And as for the final over, that was just bonkers.
Fifteen to win, six balls – probably New Zealand by a whisker.
Dot, fifteen to win, five balls – New Zealand by an increasing margin.
Dot, fifteen to win, four balls – definitely New Zealand.
Six, nine to win, three balls – New Zealand by a whisker.
Six, three to win, two balls – England.
One, two to win, one ball – England (probably).
As far as death bowling goes, Trent Boult’s effort was nigh on perfect and his reward was to have to do it all again.
Even those who won’t accept there are two teams in any given contest would’ve have struggled not to feel sorry for Kane Williamson’s side who must have thought they’d offended a higher power somewhere down the line to be treated in such a manner.
It was, undeniably, cruel and it was undeserved but it only added to the overall tapestry. It was sport, it was cricket and it was magnificent.
It has to be mentioned that while the idea of a six-ball shootout, or a boundary count, to decide who comes out on top isn’t to everyone’s tastes and the overthrows that shortened England’s odds dramatically were incorrectly awarded, the obvious reply to these is that for the former duo, rules change and this was the 2019 version and for the latter, it was an umpiring error and nothing more.
Come the next tournament in four years’ time there is every chance the method for splitting teams will be different and the overthrow laws may be amended or tightened but that is for then.
Personally, I’d go back to wickets lost and then a countback on scores but I doubt that’ll happen.
Jos Buttler celebrates England’s miracle World Cup victory. (Photo by Michael Steele/Getty Images)
As for now, an excellent tournament that produced plenty of absorbing cricket ended with a remarkable final and enough evidence to suggest that the world game, and this is the crux of the matter, is given context, is in pretty decent health.
It is too easy to knock the sport for what it doesn’t do but what was produced at Lord’s showed what it has to offer.
So as for India in 2023, a simple request. More of the same please.
Neel
Roar Guru
Hahaha. What? Gee that’s funny. Yeah, I can’t wait for the series later this year. It should be a good one. Wagner might get under the Poms skins a bit.
Cari
Roar Rookie
Consolation for New Zealand they beat England in the netball semi final 47-45 but I’m sure England’s net was 4 inches wider.
Neel
Roar Guru
Best final I have seen in any sport. That match was worthy of a final.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
I think the '99 South Africa situation is looked on in a slightly different light because South Africa simply blew it, outrageously so. I recall much less "furore" about that than the '92 South Africa loss to England in the SF because of the rain-induced revised target outcome which led to the introduction of D/L.
Jeff
Roar Rookie
It is about as relevant to cricket fans as a gumboot throw at a worm’s birthday. Classic.
Gordon P Smith
Roar Guru
Absolutely agree. There isn't a sport short of the round football that doesn't just keep playing something vaguely resembling the sport itself - and a super over isn't so taxing or drawn out that you couldn't play a second one - or even a third or fourth - if necessary. (And the idea that you match run totals over fifty is wild enough, but the chances of another tied super over in our lifetimes at a CWC is next to nil, anyway.) Counting boundaries, wickets, singles, dot balls, any of those only reward teams who play a style of cricket that's relevant to that particular stat. PLAY THE GAME. And keep playing until there's a winner. [Having said all that - holy catfish, that was the most fun I've ever had watching cricket. Ever.]
Targa
Guest
The bowlers bowl and try to hit the wickets (no batsmen). The highest number of hits wins. I think 5 bowlers bowl 2 balls each from each side. It is basically like a penalty shoot out with no goalies.
Zavjalova
Roar Rookie
New Zealand should be champions. The lost less wicket. Worst rule ever invented
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
Don't recall that Targa. What happens there?
Targa
Guest
After the first super over I think they should go to a bowl off which was used in the early days of T20s
Jeff
Roar Rookie
Agreed. It is gutting. And I would have felt that way if it had also been Australia, West Indies, Pakistan, South Africa, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka as well. See, no bias here.rr NZ cricket deserved better than that. Australia is just as beholden to India as anyone - hence our travel to India for ODIs in the middle of January next year. It's frustrating, but what can you do? Realistically.
bobbo7
Guest
Agree - cricket needs to be free to air - if not you are cutting half of the next generation off. It is terribly short-sighted to diminish the exposure
Charging Rhino
Roar Guru
My opinion is they should keep going, super over after super over, sudden death until one team scores more runs in 1 over and is declared the winner. That is the only fairest way to decide a winner on the day. I'm sure if they went to a 2nd Super over one of the teams would've scored more? If not in the 2nd Super over then definitely in the 3rd.... surely? Why not keep going? It adds to the tension and the interest as a whole. In the same way as soccer has a penalty shootout and if equal after 5 attempts, keeps going until a team is clear and is declared the winner. Or in tennis if you reach the 5th set you keep going (I know they've just brought in the 12-12 tie breaker, but you still have a winner. I don't really agree with 12-12 tie breaker either, who recalls the epic Federer- Roddick Wimbledon final of 2009?). It's harsh on the loser, but someone has to lose and at least the other is a winner based on the match that day. Not previous days, nor run rate, wickets, boundaries, who was higher on the table, head to head etc.... Every one of those criteria will leave the "loser" (not really lost) with the same frustrations as NZ and SA in 1999. You have to keep going until you have a winner. Just have to. Same as rugby. If equal after extra time, keep going to Sudden death until one team scores the first points (try or kick). At least there is a winner.
bobbo7
Guest
I think it will mean something to England, but I also think they have been robbed of winning their WC. If social media is anything to go by many consider this an unfair and unjust result, which really isn't fair to England either. No England's fault at all - they played really well but the ICC has a lot to answer for. I can live this the runs off the bat and the umpire calls mostly going England's way - that is cricket and I don't consider there is any conspiracy in any of this like some have suggested. It was a fantastic game and a great WC, but to have it decided by such a irrelevant rule as a boundary count is just gut wrenching. It is about as relevant to cricket fans as a gumboot throw at a worm's birthday. And when you consider the WC was to be split if both days were rained off, it makes even less sense. Wickets would have made more sense but I don't think I should probably stop commenting as I am still furious. As a small nation, NZ may never got this chance again. A loss would have been far more palatable than this result. But it was a great game and ICC rules aside. a great way to end the WC.
dungerBob
Roar Rookie
If that game didn't turn a few English heads crickets way then there truly isn't much hope for the game there. That was as good as it gets. The best the sport has to offer. If it didn't make at least some impression on the youth of Britain then I give up.
Offside
Roar Rookie
Gutted! The WC will mean nothing to English cricket. They will still have the 5 test match series. They will still have teams lining up to tour. They will still play the best cricket nations regardless if they won or lost. Despite coming second in the last world cup, New Zealand has recently had a test against Australia cancelled so Australia can accommodate India. New Zealand, despite being so close to number 1 in the world will continue to be treated as a second class citizen in the cricketing world as England, Australia, India and South Africa continue to have all the tours they want. The world cup would have been the best thing to happen to New Zealand cricket. And we were denied by the most ludicrous rules and judgements imaginable. Utterly gutting :-(
Diplomatt
Guest
Always enjoy your articles Alec. How will the ECB use this result to encourage the young Jimmys, Joeys and Moeys to play cricket? A strong England is good for world cricket. They need some games on free to air - even if it's a financial loss - it would be a great investment in the future of the game in England.