Cricket World Cup 2019 will be long remembered for the crazy last hour of play of the tournament. It saw both the sides bottle up their golden chance of lifting the cup. And in the end, nothing could separate the sides. Not even the super over. After the whole quota of 100 overs, the match was tied at 241 runs. And a super over was called upon. A super over in the final of the world cup. Can it get any bigger than this?
England was called in to bat first. With the help of Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler, they managed to get to the 15-runs-mark. The only thing which separated the Kiwis from the world cup trophy was those crucial sixteen runs. After Jamie Needham heroics, it was down to 2 runs off the final ball and Guptill was on strike. Full delivery on the boots, played with soft hands in front of deep square and he runs for the second. Roy throws it at the striker's end, Buttler collected the ball and whipped off the Bails. Even with his stretched dive, Guptill falls short. After all the drama, the scoreline looked something like this:
The scorecard clearly sums up the match
It was some crazy final and at last, England was declared the winner based on the boundary rule. They scored 26 boundaries to New Zealand's 17. Many experts of the game and the former cricketers themselves have come to openly criticize such a parameter of picking the winner. Here are some points to ponder upon whether a world cup final ever be decided based on the number of boundaries scored.
It is a shame to such a thrilling finale: Even a cumbersome rule like the Duckworth-Lewis system takes note of the wicket column when predicting the final score. And the result of a match doesn't take into account the wickets taken and is simply based on the number of boundaries. Ask a batsman, what's more difficult, scoring a boundary or taking four singles? More often than not, the latter will come out to be the answer. It takes a lot of skill to fetch those singles and doubles. An edge could easily give you a boundary. Leave aside the singles, why there isn't a wickets parameter attached to it. England did lose two more wickets than the Kiwis. If it was in place, the Blackcaps should be holding the cup right now. As if the Duckworth-Lewis System was not enough that the ICC came up with this. Illogical and disgraceful to the core.
After that final ball drama!
Some rules in cricket definitely need a look in: Much has been talked about the Review System. How can a decision stand only on the grounds of the umpire's call? It's their decision only that's being questioned. Out or not out, umpire's call shouldn't be a criteria anymore. And let's just not talk about the Duckworth-Lewis System. Don't think that even the ones who derived it, can tell you what's next in store? It's just absurd and certainly needs changing. Such is this decision of picking the winner based on the number of boundaries. Needs a look in for sure.
But it was fair in the context of the match: A lot of debate can be done whether or not this rule is in the spirit of the game. But for the time being, New Zealand knew about this rule from the starting of the super over itself. When England put on 15 runs. They knew that only 16 will do it for them. Anything less and there she goes. It was not as if they were told about it after their innings, they knew about it well in advance. So it was completely fair in the context of the game.
Final take: We, as cricket fans, tend to be more emotional at times. This rule is in the system for some time now. And it was just bad luck on the part of New Zealand that they have to understand it the hard way. By losing the world cup final. Had it been a bilateral series, it wouldn't have gathered this much headlines. But this doesn't hide the fact that the rule is totally absurd and is a shame on the part of ICC. If even a super over cannot separate the sides, it should have been, simply hands down, the trophy should have been shared. Those bunch of players didn't deserve that runner-up's medal for god's sake. And a world cup final should never be decided based on the number of boundaries.
