Nearly four months have passed since England and New Zealand served up that World Cup final but for Ian Smith, the Kiwi commentator who called the staggering denouement, it still remains fresh in the mind’s eye. “I’m over the result but I don’t think I’m quite over the moment,” says Smith, as we meet at Nelson’s bucolic Saxton Oval and pull up a couple of chairs by the groundsman’s hut while the staff, the players and the broadcast teams buzz around before a vastly more low-key T20 between the two sides.

“I think about that day at Lord’s quite a lot. It doesn’t dominate my life but it will never leave me. You could commentate on sport your whole life and never get a moment like that. My voice will be there for ever, I guess. It’s an honour … I just hope I got it right.”

It is in keeping with Smith’s nature, as warm off the air as on it, that he should question this: the 62-year-old former wicketkeeper may be considered by his peers (and this particular admirer) to sit among the elite of his profession but, like Kane Williamson’s “beaten” finalists, there is little ego to go with it.

England win Cricket World Cup after super-over drama against New Zealand Read more

Yet it is fair to say that, just as Jofra Archer, Jason Roy and Jos Buttler somehow held their nerve come that final heart-stopping delivery – the run-out of Martin Guptill to leave the super over all square, but England winners via the little-known boundary countback tie-breaker – so too did Smith.

This is the moment: it’s Archer to Guptill. Two to win. Guptill’s going to push for two. They’ve got to go. It’s … the throw’s got to go to the keeper’s end! HE’S GOT IT! England have won the World Cup by the barest of margins. By the barest of all margins. Absolute ecstasy for England, agony, agony for New Zealand…

The words are now part of cricket history. Smith, who along with his co-commentators Nasser Hussain and Ian Bishop had seen a final seven-over stint on air morph into 80 minutes of the most volatile sporting drama imaginable, had one shot and, for my money, nailed it.

“None of us in the box could believe what we had just been a part of. I went back to my hotel, the Danubius across the road, with Simon Doull [another former New Zealand player]. We chatted to fans on the way, I had four pints in about 50 minutes and then slept through till morning. I was drained. And I was just so disappointed for the New Zealand players. It was their time … but it wasn’t. We never lost the game. We just didn’t win it.”

At this point Smith gives a slightly misty-eyed look in the direction of the mountain in the distance. As a player he was part of the New Zealand team defeated by Pakistan in the 1992 World Cup semi-final; as a commentator, in 2015 and the summer just gone, he has twice called losing finals for the Black Caps. Yet any such thoughts were typically kept in check on air despite being “churned up” inside and having to stand throughout. “I get a wee bit of criticism in this country for not being pro-New Zealand,” says Smith, a veteran of around 160 All Blacks Tests, including two more successful finals. “But I consider myself to be a commentator from New Zealand, not a New Zealand commentator. That helps you keep an open mind and definitely helped me that day at Lord’s.”

Play Video 2:11 England's 'rollercoaster' journey to Cricket World Cup glory – video

It was needed given a cascade of sliding doors moments that one by one went against Williamson’s players, such as Trent Boult catching man-of-the-match Ben Stokes at long-on with nine balls to go, only for his back foot to hit the boundary rope. “Trent is such a brilliant outfielder and he usually swallows those. But Lord’s is unique and he was back-pedalling uphill … maybe that was a small contribution.”

That possible topographical quirk pales in comparison to the next freakish occurrence as, with nine to win off Boult’s last three balls, Stokes dived to complete a second run only for Guptill’s throw from the deep to strike his bat for an additional four runs.

This is a big moment. They’ve got to run. The throw goes to the other end … oh, he gets in the way! This is going to go all the way to the boundary … off the bat … can you believe this? It has! I DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT I HAVE JUST SEEN.

We have learned since that, by the letter of the law, five runs, not six, should have been given, as the batsmen were still to cross at the point of Guptill’s release. Yet the two on-field umpires, their colleague upstairs, the sell-out crowd and millions watching around the world were somehow oblivious.

Australia steamroller New Zealand to win World Cup final in style Read more

“In all my time, playing and commentating, I have never seen something like that. Myself, Nasser, Bish, the stattos in the box … no one knew it should have been five. And I still feel a wee bit guilty about this,” says Smith, surprisingly. “Maybe if I had, I would have said it on air and it led to replays which might have forced someone’s hand. Maybe the third umpire would have clicked. But then no one knew. And it’s ironic, you know? The most important six of the entire tournament … and it went right along the ground.”

More uncharted territory followed when Stokes, having kept the strike by sacrificing Adil Rashid off the penultimate ball, needed two to win off Boult’s final delivery.

Seven weeks of cricket, 48 games, one ball, here’s Boult … they’re gonna push … are we in for a super over? They’ve got to go quick, they got to go quick, OUT … I’m sure he’s out! WE’RE GOING TO A SUPER OVER!

Mark Wood, the No 11, had been run out to leave the scores level. Smith readily admits that the first time he had considered the prospect of boundary countback being used should the super over be tied came when reading the regulations live and quipping: “After what we’ve just seen, who’d bet against it?”

In essence it gave England – batting first and having struck an unassailable 24 boundaries to New Zealand’s 16 by this point – an extra run to work with after Stokes and Buttler had plundered 15. Originally designed for Twenty20, where big hits are king, it felt more arbitrary for an ODI; by changing this to unlimited super overs since, the ICC has admitted as much.

Smith says: “It was a beautiful day with so much light left and a crowd baying for more – let the players sort this out, not some macabre rule. But it didn’t work like that. New Zealand knew they had to get 16. It is what it is. I saw their faces at the time and there was disappointment – but no anger – and then some pretty good grace. From both sides, really.

“I was in admiration of the players given the pressure they were under. Take Jason Roy. He had misfielded and thrown to the wrong end in the super over but still delivered. And Jos Buttler at the stumps. I look at it and wonder: did every one of those England players really want the ball in that moment? I don’t know.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Jos Buttler runs out New Zealand’s Martin Guptill to seal England’s World Cup triumph at Lord’s. Photograph: Tom Jenkins/The Observer

“But ultimately I just thought it was a fantastic game – one for the ages and a privilege to call – and if kids didn’t want to play cricket after that, well, the sport is in trouble. It was the ultimate advert. Pretty good to be a part of, eh?”

On the subject of adverts, I ask whether Smith likes the sound of the Hundred. “Yeah, I’m not completely old school. I move with the times. But I love commentating on Test cricket and the way it develops over time.”

Perhaps a broadcaster in the UK might tempt him to return? It could be for the new whizz-bang tournament to reconjure the World Cup vibe, or back in Test cricket, having done five summers with Channel 4 in the free-to-air days. Smith is open to the idea. Sky Sports New Zealand has lost the rights to cricket after this season and, given his continuing role for the broadcaster in rugby, the current series could well be his last covering cricket at home.

Aaron Finch leads Australia thrashing of Pakistan to seal 2-0 T20 series win Read more

“I started playing in ’75, went straight into the commentary box: Christmas next year could be my first not working in 45 by the time I get there. I think my wife and I may get a caravan and head up the coast,” he says. “I don’t quite know how it will play out but I find it sad. Cricket has been ingrained in my life and in the last 20-odd years I never missed a session of Test cricket at home. I’m very sad about it.”

It would be a blow if so. Before we head off to cover the match, I touch briefly on those playing days as a pugnacious wicketkeeper and lower-order batsman, still the owner of the highest Test score from No 9 – 173 versus India at Eden Park in 1990 – and an ODI strike rate of 99 that was well ahead of its time.

“That strike rate was good … but the average [17] was average. In fact, less than average,” he jokes. “I was impetuous, some would say a slogger … but these days they are calculated slog sweeps and people make a lot of money from them. Maybe I was born at the wrong time to play, but the right time to commentate.”

It is true that Smith’s own bank balance may be lighter as a result. But those glued to the end of that World Cup final – 8.92 million in the UK, after Sky shared the coverage with Channel 4 – are certainly the richer for it.