ok- with a little bit of time, here is where I've ended up.
Gutted.
One of the greatest games of cricket that has ever been. Can you name a better ODI? I've been thinking a lot about it and I'm not sure I can. It was captivating, especially with a low total- a feature of this World Cup.
I was disappointed with a few decisions that went against us- particularly LBW's that hit the top of the pad (Nicholls and Taylor)- they were heading over the stumps IMO. But that's just a part of the game.
The decision to award England 6 runs instead of the correct 5 for the over throws is also very disappointing. Again, I didn't know the rule at the time and you rely on the officials to know it. It's not as dramatic as some are making out- it just would have meant Stokes goes into the last 2 balls with a slightly different mindset. Who knows what would have happened?
Generally, NZ were extremely unlucky. England were extremely lucky. They rode their luck. That's sport.
But I can't think of a match where the luck was so one sided. The amount of French cuts that missed the stumps by millimetres for England (I counted five). The LBW calls. The Trent Boult catch. The overthrow debacle. We just had nothing going our way, and it was brutal. In saying that, I'm so proud of the fact we took that game to the final possible ball, in light of all the odds being against us.
Penultimately, who deserved it? England beat Australia, India, and NZ en route to the title. They truly are the best ODI side in the world right now and they probably deserved the title in that sense. They were probably the best team at that tournament in the end. We barely made the semifinal.
Back to the deflection, I think if the ball inadvertently hits a batsman, then play should be dead subsequently. It's not the responsibility of the batsman to get out of the way of the throw, but it is also not the responsibility of the fielder to have to focus on not hitting the batsman when throwing the ball at the stumps.
The Super Over is a dumb way to decide a match. I'm not and never have been a fan of T20, but even those who are would confess that ODI's are just a different game. If T20 is about entertainment, quick turnover, big shots, and an end result, ODI's are not so much and especially not a World Cup final.
Counting boundaries as a way of splitting two teams is a slap in the face of batsmans who turn over the strike, bowlers who take wickets, and teams that apply pressure by accumulation, not speed. Cricket is about two things. Scoring runs, and taking wickets. There is plenty more to the game, but those are the two measures, on a scorecard, that separates team A from team B. So if the runs are equal, the most logical conclusion would be to move to who has the most wickets. Therefore, NZ were deserved winners. No team that gets bowled out chasing a total should be handed the win.
To conclude, I'm gutted it ended the way it did. NZ deserved to win that game. They certainly didn't lose it, and England didn't win it. It was a tie. In saying that, I'm not aggrieved England won the tournament. They are a fantastic and deserving champion... I just would have liked for them to have won it properly.
NZ did so well to even make the final, let alone play the way they did. For that, we can only be stoked to have witnessed them on that stage, and in that occasion.
But I'm still gutted.
