England won the World Cup final on the virtue of scoring more boundaries during the match.
England and New Zealand yesterday, perhaps played out the most thrilling Cricket World Cup final ever. Hosts England were crowned eventual champions, but the ICC rule which handed England the Cup has been ridiculed by the cricket fraternity.
New Zealand, batting first, posted a 241-run target for England in 50 overs, England, led by impressive innings from Ben Stokes and Jos Buttler managed to draw level and match New Zealand's score of 240. The match went into a Super Over, but both teams were still inseparable as England and New Zealand managed to score 15 runs each in the Super Over.
Thus the match was handed to England for scoring more boundaries during the course of the match, as compared to New Zealand.
This did not go down well with a lot of prominent cricket personalities, saying that the match should have ended in a tie as both teams were level even after the Super Over.
Here are some reactions:
Teacher: England is first
— Chetan Bhagat (@chetan_bhagat) July 15, 2019
NZ: but I had the same marks.
Teacher: But see he answered a 4-mark question, and u answered two 2-mark questions. So, he's the winner.
NZ: What the... #ICCRules
If in a super over a country can win by the virtue of more boundaries then why can a country not win by the virtue of losing lesser wickets in the actual match? There is a serious problem with the your rules @ICC @cricketworldcup
— Anurag Kashyap (@anuragkashyap72) July 14, 2019
Heartbreaking. New Zealand did not lose, mate! Yet England won the game. It’s a flaw with the ICC game rules. https://t.co/tsoj2Ue1yE
— Aditya Raj Kaul (@AdityaRajKaul) July 15, 2019
Instead of changing @msdhoni gloves , the stupid @ICC should have changed their super over rules !!!!
— Paresh Rawal (@SirPareshRawal) July 15, 2019
Catch up on all the latest sports news and updates here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates