Cricket World cup

[Don Corleone]

As exciting as it was I still don’t get how England won - surely the point of cricket is to score runs and take wickets. If in the event of a tie like yesterday then it would make more sense to declare the team that had lost the least wickets the winner (NZ). Winning it on most boundaries is as someone else said like winning a football match on corner count. Just seems a strange rule, I’m sure it used to be the case that if a match was tied the team losing the fewest wickets won

[qccfc]

As exciting as it was I still don’t get how England won - surely the point of cricket is to score runs and take wickets. If in the event of a tie like yesterday then it would make more sense to declare the team that had lost the least wickets the winner (NZ). Winning it on most boundaries is as someone else said like winning a football match on corner count. Just seems a strange rule, I’m sure it used to be the case that if a match was tied the team losing the fewest wickets won

They changes that ruling as it was a disadvantage to the team batting 2nd. England lost wickets yesterday going for the win.

You could also say NZ lost more wickets in the super over, and would have deserved to lose based on that.

To be fair the umpires explained the rules at the start and commentators made it clear that England would win on boundary count if the super over was a tie.