Joint champions. Why not, asks Scott Styris

Scott Styris, former New Zealand all-rounder

50-williamson-morgan Picture-perfect: England captain Eoin Morgan and New Zealand captain Kane Williamson pose with the trophy at Lord’s prior to the final | Getty Images

AT THE OUTSET, let me emphasise that the supporters of the New Zealand team feel a great sense of pride about the way their team competed and fought, fought and fought some more in that final. But yes, there is a sense that it was a random statistic rather than a sporting reason that allowed England to hold aloft the World Cup after what was the most exciting final ever.

I know a lot is being made of the ball going off Ben Stokes’s bat and reaching the boundary. If the ball had been fielded, Stokes would not have run, but when it crossed the boundary, six runs were awarded. After the match, there were suggestions, quoting the rule book, that perhaps only five runs should have been awarded. However, I am not too sad about an umpiring malfunction as that could happen in cricket. I can live with human error, because I know that it is unavoidable.

What was perhaps avoidable was the randomness of the rule that declares the team with more boundaries as the winner, in the event of a tie in the Super Over. It seems like a cut-paste from T20 rules and simply does not take into account the eight-hour tussle that is a 50-over game. I would have liked an extra time of four overs a side, which would have had a better chance of finding a fair-and-square winner. If one wanted to go the Super Over way, they could have continued into a second Super Over with new bowler and batting combinations. The sad thing is that not enough thought was given to such a situation. Hopefully, the events of last Sunday will ensure that more thought is given to these possibilities in the future.

On another plane, is the world ready for joint champions? Clearly, there was nothing to split England and New Zealand that evening. Even as a New Zealander I do not think England deserved to lose once the Super Over was tied. Both teams did have their chances to win, but were stopped by the resilience of the opponent. In many ways, a joint winner would perhaps have been the better conclusion to the match. I had said this even before the Super Over, when asked about the possibility of the scores being tied even after it. Sometimes, sport does not need a last man standing and a tie is a result we need to respect. What is more, joint winners would have been the result if the finals had been washed out.

The ICC will be criticised for what happened in the finals, but I can see where they are coming from. With broadcasters incentivising exciting cricket, it stands to reason that the team that scored more boundaries—that is, played more attractive cricket—is the team that will be rewarded. Such a system might make some sense in T20 cricket, but does not hold in an ODI. The 50-over game needs a longer, more complex system and needs a period akin to football’s extra time.

I had started by saying that the New Zealanders are proud of their team’s efforts. That said, we knew this was a very good chance for the Black Caps to lift that cup. The team must be hurting and would rue the chances they missed during the game to first score some more, and second restrict the hosts. They would simply have to live with the fact that it was not to be. The boys did us proud, but the rub of the green went the other way.