With the result hinging on something more obscure than GATT 24 Paragraph 5B, how else might the match have been decided?

What is it with obscure regulations and cricket world cups? The rain rule in 1992, the super six points carry over in 1999 and Sunday’s super over tie boundaries ridiculousness. (The ICC obviously likes the word “super”). Sporting injustice is, well, part and parcel of sport, but it does feel truly nonsensical that England were crowned champions for scoring more Chinese cuts than New Zealand. At least the weather stayed fair.

Unlike many other team sports, in cricket not all players are on the pitch at the same time, so any tie-breaker would not have quite the same cruelness:fairness ratio of a football penalty shoot-out. Nothing is perfect, but how else could the tie have been settled?

Team losing fewer wickets

The way that such results used to be decided – the argument presumably being that the team with the most wickets in hand would usually have gone on to score the most runs if the innings was to continue. On this basis New Zealand would have been the victors.

Head to head

England beat New Zealand in the round-robin, so England win the world cup.

Net run rate 

A major talking point during the group stages of the world cup as it may have been needed to settle the four semi-finalists. Why not use it in the final? England win.

Fair play award

The team with the best disciplinary record lifts the trophy. Jason Roy’s (understandable) outburst at Edgbaston costs his team dearly.

Four super overs

The only other time I have watched a super over was at the World T20 in Sri Lanka, featuring the hosts and New Zealand – who lost that one as well. A one over thrash is certainly dramatic, but seems very harsh, particularly on the fielding side. Quite why there wasn’t a toss to decided which team batted first in the super over, I do not know. At least we were spared the drama of a bowler breaking down mid-over. 

Listening to the radio commentary, Michael Vaughan made a good point about sending Ben Stokes out to bat as he was already loose and seeing the ball well. Had it been England in the field before the start of the super over, I would have expected Jason Roy to partner Jos Buttler, although with the former’s dodgy hamstring, that might not have been the option England would have gone for.

Sunday’s light and weather conditions would have allowed for such a four-over mini game, with bowlers permitted up to two overs each.

Bowl out 

In matches heavily affected by rain, county teams have been known to retire to the indoor cricket school for a bowl out. Bowlers who have spent all season failing to hit a line and length suddenly manage to find it on the one occasion when a caught behind (or “nick off” as seems to be the mots de jour) is taken out of the equation.  

Why not send the bowlers out in the middle to knock over the stumps on the slope at Lord’s? Ideally with them having to hold the ball in the opposite hand. Imagine Jofra Archer’s left arm spin at such a crucial moment. What drama.

Super Sixer

Not to be confused with the aforementioned points regulation at the 1999 World Cup. Here, six batsmen from each team must face one ball each from six bowlers from the opposition. As currently a minimum of five bowlers must trundle in during a one day international, this could be moderated to five balls or kept at six, with the option of a bowler sending down two deliveries.

Catching practice

Each player is flung a ball from the dog thrower. Whichever team clings on to the most catches wins the game and a curry night with Graham Gooch.

Just A Minute

Commentary captains Michael Vaughan and Jeremy Coney have to speak for one minute without hesitation, repetition, deviation or talking about their own careers. A careless mention of “’05” and England crash out.

100 balls

The two tied teams return with new names and followings, to play a one hundred ball game with the option of a 10-ball super over, one hand one bounce and double points joker powerplay.

Share the bloody thing

England only won because they copied the #brandofcricket trademarked by New Zealand in the first place.