I was at Edgbaston in 1999 when South Africa were eliminated from the World Cup after their semi-final against Australia ended in a chaotic runout and a tie.

I had managed to buy a ticket for my son. A long silence on the drive back to London was punctuated when he said: “This has been the worst day of my life.”

The largely unheralded Black Caps were desperately unlucky on Sunday. After 50 overs, the match was tied. A “super over” was also tied. England were declared the winners because they had scored more boundaries.

Was it a fair way to end the deadlock? Was it even necessary to have the tie-breaker? Would it not have been fair for the teams to share the trophy?

The modern sport demands a winner. Across London, at almost exactly the same time, the first fifth set tie-breaker in a Wimbledon final went the way of Novak Djokovic against Roger Federer. Tennis has a history of matches being played to a finish, cricket for generations embraced the concept of the honourable draw.

Even in limited overs cricket, a tie was acceptable. South Africa were eliminated in 1999 not because they lost but because Australia finished higher on the log in what was then a Super Six league.

When tiebreakers were necessary, different methods were tried before the advent of the Super Over, designed to be the equivalent of soccer’s penalty shoot-out. There was a time when the team that lost fewest wickets was the winner. On that basis, New Zealand would have won.

There were key moments during Sunday’s match which went against New Zealand but there were two that were particularly cruel in the dramatic closing overs of the match proper – a catch on the boundary that became six runs when Trent Boult stepped on the boundary marker and, cruelly, four overthrows in the final over when a throw from Martin Guptill deflected off the bat of a diving Stokes.

I have focused on New Zealand because the record shows that they lost. Yet it would have been similarly cruel if England had lost. They played some magnificent cricket during the tournament and in the final they fought to the end on a pitch which did not suit their preferred, swashbuckling style of play.

To revive an old sporting cliché, it was a shame there had to be a loser.

Yet, in accepting the result and refusing to blame cruel fortune, Kane Williamson, the New Zealand captain, gave an example of sportsmanship and decency that should be an example to all who play and follow sport.

Williamson was named player of the tournament. That award was based on his skilful batting and his shrewd captaincy but his dignity in defeat was worthy of an award of its own. DM