Regular super over then Big Bash countback sudden death super over and then super ball. Gives everyone a chance to put a partnership together but gets the job done.

And let's face it too we have seen some shocking fielding mistakes from Boult (we have seen some great fielding too btw) in the tournament so it wasn't all that surprising to me that he made that blunder.

It should be like play offs for golf that they just keep having holes after holes until a player wins by a stroke for a hole. Cricket world cups should continue to have super overs until a victor. I mean the likelihood of another tie is so minor that they should keep playing on because after all this is the world cup.

Guppy was chosen mostly because he’s one of the fastest runners in WC. Hence him being at the non strikers end. Yes he’s been out of form but showed glimpses in his last 2 innings. I think it’s the right call as was Neesh

I hate “shared trophies” but this was a legitimate case of being the right result

Imagine if the losing team was India/Pak/WI/SL/Bangles. This would be a white man conspiracy and the Franz Ferdinand of WW3

I'd think I'd rather anything to a shared trophy to be honest, but I understand the point. They need to find a champ and so long as you don't change the rules on the day nobody can claim anything dodgy, even if they can claim that a crappy rule was in place.

As I've said before, if you can't play any longer then splitting by position in the group phase is fairer imo and would probably cause less of an issue. Had NZ finished higher in the group then I'd be more pissed off if I was a Kiwi, though of course we don't know how it would have played out anyway even then (eg maybe Archer would have gone for that run-out on the fifth ball, tried a different line etc, who knows).

The whole of cricket has been in favour of India for going on for a decade now.
I’m surprised they didn’t call it a tie and make up a rule that meant that the trophy went to India for finishing top of the table.

Was it here I read that the boundaries rule was introduced because that’s the rule in the IPL? Can anyone verify that ?

Well that wouldn't surprise me given the influence India have on the ICC with the money that India brings the game. Also gives them a distinct advantage given that India are renowned for hitting boundaries rather than running between the wickets and accumulating runs that way.

What % of IPL matches go to Super Over & what % of them go to boundaries scored?

Theres never been a tied super over in IPL AFAIK

So far, there have been nine super overs and only one of that ended in a tied super over.

Rajasthan Royals needed 3 to win the Super over and 2 to tie.

IPL Super Over Tied Match 2014 RR vs KKR - https://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/...in-ipl-history

No. of Super Overs in IPL - https://sportzwiki.com/cricket/list-...r-overs-in-ipl

Do you have any stats to back this statement?

Thanks. ~60 matches per IPL * 12 IPLs --> 720 matches. 1/80 went to a Super Over & it's unlikelier in 50 over matches.

Pakistan Cricket is at its best for opportunist presented unpredictability....

Only Surav Ganguly's tenure as Indian captain

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/49042726

Haha it's a great headline, but anybody can be nominated by anyone so it's just clickbait

If i were in charge...

Winner of the coin toss could choose bat first, field first or pass the choice to the coin toss loser and win if its a tie. If they choose bat or field, other team wins if its a tie.

No reasonable overtime will be sufficient to declare a winner of a 50 over match and winning the coin toss provides a clear unearned edge.

If you really want to be optimal then could have a sealed bid or perhaps English auction where you have to pay X runs for privilege of deciding whether to bat or bowl first. The toss always swings some % on betfair which I agree is an unfair edge to get.

If nothing else, when it comes to bilateral series, a coin toss is only necessary for the first match (and last match assuming an odd number of matches).

If England wins the toss they choose for the first match, Aussie chooses for the 2nd etc...

I can't think of another sport where a coin toss shifts the line as it does in cricket.

NZ got screwed in a few different ways in the final, but they also clearly benefited from batting first.

Getting the embarrassing collapse out of the way before the Ashes i see. Great thinking from England.

Australia doing the same in their warmup.

4D chess