Congrats to England - who I was rootingfor.
Actually, the young lad, Joe Root is one of my favorite players - and I was hoping he would singlehandedly bring home the trophy.
I did not see the match as I am living in Bogota where they would not know how to spell cricket.
Cricket has been reborn thanks to this so called ODI format.
Its arcane rules and insistence by India to limit cricket participation by others so India will always shine - has limited its global appeal.
I think, we in America can bring this game to a more global appeal with innovation.
Starting with - changing the layout of the field to resemble baseball layout. One wicket to be close to the stands so you can actually see the ball.
The last time, a big one was played was in Yankee stadium which adopted this layout. Even the players were amazed how good it was.
As it is, regardless of how much you have paid for tickets - you are at least 200 plus feet away from the ball.
The ODI format invented by Aussies - they can go further.
I call the layout a "gulley cricket" as is played in neighborhoods the world over where you are close to action.
Americans will throng cricket if ODI is played like a gulley cricket.
2
Victor Mather commented that Cricket, Rugby and Soccer (Football) all originated in England. A reasonable argument can be made for Baseball; there is (was?) a traditional English game called Rounders that is the clear progenitor of Baseball.
Despite their image, the English are a playful lot.
7
As an American visiting New Zealand, I recall watching a cricket match on the TV and commenting to the proprietor of the pub that I just didn't understand crickett. He then launched into an hours-long telling of the rules, intricacies, nuances, beauty, heroics, history, etc, etc, of cricket, giving my wife and I a free meal, and enough free drinks that we could not drive home. I still don't understand crickett, but I learned to love it that evening!
3
That's it folks!
Cricket reached it's pinnacle yesterday. No one can beat what happened in this match. So everyone can stop playing the game now. It's done and dusted.. there is nothing else remaining to be explored...
2
@Rajesh
Never! cricket is a fantastic game and I grew up in the US playing baseball.
4
I’ve been watching and listening to cricket matches for 50 years
This match topped everything that came before
30 hours later, I’m still exhausted just thinking about it
What a game, what am amazing show of sportsmanship from two great teams
4
When the #3 and #4 seeded teams play in the finals - it was already messed up. Australia and India should have been in the finals. Regardless of the rules, the quality of play in the semi-finals and finals was incredible. For that, both teams deserve high praise.
1
@YC, both Australia and India were beaten in the semi finals. Do you disqualify a team who is not the #1 or #2 seed from winning the World Series, or the NBA finals, or the SuperBowl? Of course not. I prefer first past the post as the arbiter of who wins a sporting league or tournament, but with the exception of most domestic football (soccer) leagues, there are generally semi finals and finals to contest to determine the ultimate winner of a sporting tournament.
2
It was a wonderful day of international sports. Memories of a Cricket match to last a lifetime and stories to tell grand kids. Thank you sport of Cricket and sporting nations of England and New Zealand. Just wow!
6
There were a number of decisions in the match that seemed to favor the English. The LBW out for Taylor was one of the poorest calls that umpire Erasmus has made in a very long time. More importantly, the English were erroneously given an extra run in a fielding error. Of course, the ICC is keeping mum about it. Exciting match no doubt but the Kiwis should be the victors.
https://m.cricbuzz.com/cricket-news/108966/should-england-have-been-awarded-five-runs-instead-of-six-on-overthrow-deflection-
3
England did not invent soccer - football - to the rest of the world. Football has been played by many nations since ancient times - Maya's anyone?
2
@Gabriela Vega Kock England did not invent the action of kicking a ball, that is for sure, but there is no doubt that the rules and structure of association football originated in England.
3
Believe me. We in England feel great about this.
4
This report has missed out the other flukey six that came in the penultimate over, when England still needed 22 runs from 9 balls. Boult caught Stokes right by the boundary, so Stokes should have been out, but Boult stepped back onto the boundary rope which gave Stokes a six. Incredible!
5
Cricket, the greatest sport, ever!
Cannot wait until 2023
6
It was an odd match and it was so exciting that the umpires misapplied the rules in England's favor. And when we say England we have to remember that this team is captained by an Irishman, its Man of the Match was born and bred in NZ and its demon bowler comes from Barbados. All the Kiwis were Kiwis. I think it will be remembered more as 'The Great Draw That Wasn't' than a great England* win.
1
@Cicero
The Irish captain's mother is English, the Man of the Match moved to England when he was 12 and the Barbadian bowler has an English father. Let's not go all Trump on this!
10
@Cicero I note your location, which perhaps helps explain your scepticism of England's achievement.
Fair enough, I propose any Australian victory over England featuring Kepler Wessels, Andrew Symonds, Usman Khawaja or any other foreign-born Australian player is declared null and void!
Bring on the Ashes!
4
It is not England’s World Cup. It is Cricket’s World Cup.
3
Stokes, a New Zealander, Archer, Barbadian, the captain Eoin Morgan from Dublin!
2
They flipped a coin to dtermine who batted first. They might as well have flipped a coin to determine the winner. England won because the had more boundaries. Really? I thought artistic impression only mattered in figure skating. Here's a thought, play another over. And if it's still tied play an adfitional over. Eventually someone has to win.
4
@Pags
Dead right, the English had already performed worse because they lost all their wickets to match the Blackcaps' score
Basing it on boundaries? They don't do that for the full 100 overs so why do it for the 2 "super overs"??? Makes zero sense and flies in the face of the standard rules of the game
Clearly, that didn't count one iota
3
@Rick
I'm afraid it does count, everyone knows the rules before the tournament starts - maybe that was the time to complain about the method of deciding a tie?
6
Worth mentioning the most ironical aspect of this surreal final: the player who guided England to victory, Ben Stokes, is a New Zealand lad. Born in NZ, he moved to England at the age of 12. I believe his parents still reside in NZ.
7
@Santa
Oh come on!
This is pure blasphemy!!
Have you not read the any sports bible? Your allegiance is to the team you play for. Nothing else matters..
3
@Santa
A piece of trivia for you, if you weren't already aware. The New Zealand All Blacks had all their points scored in the 1995 Rugby World Cup final against South Africa by one guy. Andrew Meurtens (sp?), who was born in South Africa
Those commonwealth colonies are quite into their migrations and re-migrations, eh?
2
Former coach of the mighty Canterbury Bulls is his father
The super over rule was written never expecting it would ever be needed to be used but now that it was used in the just concluded match International Cricket Board ICC should probably revise the rule to a minimum of 3 overs to do justice to the game. For a 50 over match only one solitary super over doesn’t seem adequate.
9
@Eraven Just awful how this was decided. I think one Super over at a time until it's settled. To go back and count whatever is terrible!!!
1
@Ed C
Not clear what you are saying.
Thanks for an explanation in a layperson’s language. It’s the first story I read about this match that I could actually understand! Exciting, indeed.
9
This was the week it was.
Greatest match ever played in Tennis only to be beaten by greatest match ever played in cricket on the same day in the same country approximately at the same time.
Will be another 100 years that you might see a cricket match like the World Cup final between England and New Zealand.
14
Eight miles apart in the same city, even!
4
Two epic matches were played in England on Sunday. The cricket match, and the Wimbledon final that went to extra games fifth set, 12-12, and an additional tiebreaker to finish. In both the cases the most extraordinary plays, and unusual scores made the ties possible. What happened in one day may never repeat, ever.
14
I feel bad for the English players because they will spend the rest of their lives trying to explain away the asterisk that will inevitably and deservedly be placed next to this "win." How many times will they utter the phrase "well, technically we won..." or be required to stumble through some long explanation of how a tie is not a tie? Rather than celebrate this game, the players will be haunted by this game for decades to come.
3
Not sure about that, Kiwi Steve!
4
@Steve
They deserve that asterisk
Just like their semi-final game versus South Africa in CWC 1992 when rain altered the chase for South Africa to 22 runs off 1 ball
They got lucky, again
@Rick How about the group stage in 1992 when Pakistan were out for 74 and England were about to eliminate them when it rained. They went on to beat England in the final. I don't remember anyone saying they didn't deserve the trophy. Stuff happens.
2
This may have been of one of the greatest championship games in all of sports!
18
Played the game since I was 5. Played all over India. Watched the game since I was 2. Watched most every game of any consequence including India's famous win over the might West Indies in 1983. That win was so epochal and important to Indians that many schools (including mine) celebrated the victory with a school holiday. Saw historical videos on Youtube of famous games over the last 80 years.
But nothing beats this. Absolutely, nothing beats this one. Not even close. To call this one an absolute thriller would be an understatement. Sure England won the label of World Champions. But then both teams won this game. Cricket won. The spectators won. TV ratings won. And the game was the biggest winner. And New Zealand is now everybody's favorite team. You can bet on it.
India and Australia have been the dominant powers in cricket in the last 20 years and winners in international tournaments had an all too familiar take about them. It was becoming one sided and dull. Only its well wishers knew that the game needed something like what transpired yesterday.
This game had it all - heroes (Stokes, Buttler, Boult, Henry) villains (the refereeing was visibly sub par), heartbreak (the perennial underdog, New Zealand, lost by the closest of possible margins), and irony (Stokes was born in Christchurch and Archer was born in the West Indies and they both conspired to win this game for their adopted nation)
whadda game ya ! This whole game was a Jaffa.
41
@ And the English captain, Eoin Morgan, is Irish!
@Plato
Not quite sure how you measure India being a dominant power in the last 20 years. One World Cup and only sporadic victories away from home. In the World Cup, Australia has been the dominant team in the last 20 years, having one it 4 times. India have are in the following pack.
1
The number of boundaries rule was put in place long before the tournament began, but perhaps it should have not even gone that far in deciding the match. England was awarded 6 runs - instead of the 5 that should have been - according to the rulebook. The return throw preceded the batsmen crossing for the second run, and should have counted for 1 run 4 overthrows = 5, and the batsmen returned to their respective crease.
11
Yes, this is the greatest cricket match ever played in history of the game. Every rule / every decision by empires is debatable in every game (soccer/tennis/BB etc).
These rules were established before single ball was bowled and every one agreed to it! I am glad England is ultimate winner though I feel sorry for NZ. They were true ambassadors of the game, especially their captain Mr.Williamson
15
I put a BIG ASTERISK by this win.
A World Cup should not come to fluky rule. After all NZ scored 241 for 8, while England was 241 ALL OUT. That should have given the match to NZ.
26
The rules were in place before the tournament started. Nobody gave a thought that the finals will need an obscure rule to separate the winner.
But without a doubt the greatest match and that too a World Cup final.
Unbelievable game of cricket.
17
@Tamza You do have a point. The bottom line, however, is why would intelligent, learned people agree to a rule that goes back and count anything to decide a game? Just have one super over after another until it's decided!
1
@Tamza But that is not how cricket is scored.