The final of the recently concluded World Cup in England will probably be the only limited overs game at international level which has ended with the scores being level after 100 overs and also after the completion of two Super overs. As there is a rare possibility of a re-occurrence of such a game of Cricket, it would be prudent for ICC to consider whether they arrived at the correct result at the conclusion of the match.
England were declared the champions on the basis that they scored more boundaries than New Zealand during the tournament. Undoubtedly this method of declaring the winner would have been a rule at the commencement of the tournament. It appears that those who drafted the rules have felt scoring of boundaries to be the most important aspect of the game. Aren’t Bowled, Caught, L.B.W. rotation of strike, running between wickets, run outs, also important facets of the game to win a tournament?
These also provide entertainment to those who are knowledgeable about the game and could have been options to find a winner. However, all these factors along with the option chosen by the ICC. have limitations, as a limited overs match can be abandoned or overs reduced due to inclement weather, thereby placing some teams at a disadvantage.
England had the benefit of 4 free runs due the ball ricocheting off the bat of a diving Ben Stokes to avoid being run out at a crucial moment of the game. Therefore taking into consideration the intensity of this match and the very exciting entertainment provided to spectators at Lords, and those viewing on TV, the right result would have been to declare the teams as joint champions.
I do hope this suggestion of mine reaches the ears of the Cricketing authorities and a fair judgement be given if a match ends in a tie in a World Cup final in the future, keeping in mind the Spirit of the Game, which is what makes this game beautiful.