Cricket World Cup: Three key questions - what was the key moment?

New Zealand Black Caps captain Brendon McCullum is bowled by Mitchell Starc of Australia at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG). Photo / Brett Phibbs.

Herald cricket experts Dylan Cleaver, Andrew Alderson and David Leggat answer three key questions following New Zealand's seven wicket loss to Australia in last night's World Cup final.

1: What was the key moment in last night's final?
Dylan Cleaver: Look, I know what Brendon McCullum means when he says 150-3 was a good launching pad, but it was a struggle even getting to that point because of the sheer aggression and skill Australia brought to the table. So for me, the most pivotal moment was the fifth ball of the match, McCullum's off stump bent back and Australia immediately on a high.

David Leggat: A tie. McCullum's dismissal and the Taylor/Anderson double departure in three balls. McCullum sets the tone for New Zealand's innings'. It's not the volume of runs he makes but the speed which enables his team to get out of the gates fast. Hitting 30 off, say, 13 balls can be the tonic. It didn't happen last night. And having recovered somewhat, losing two wickets in the first three balls of the power play was a body blow from which there was no comeback.

Andrew Alderson: All those moments were important but, after the early McCullum exit, not being able to guarantee runs from Williamson was key. He hasn't had two scores of 12 or less since the ODI at Lord's in 2013. New Zealand has been lulled into counting on his genius as insurance. Last night his caught and bowled to make it 39 for three in the 13th was a tipping point.

2: What is your lasting memory of the World Cup?

Dylan Cleaver: The way Eden park went bananas, not once but twice, when New Zealanders hit sixes to win huge games. It's a silly old ground for cricket, but you can't deny that it has hosted some incredible matches in both whites and colours. That finish against South Africa was as visceral a sporting experience as is possible.

David Leggat: Call it corny but the embracing of the cup around all bar Napier among the New Zealand venues. There was a significant dollop of feelgood about the event, at least on this side of the Tasman. On the park, Elliott and Williamson's sixes will live long, but I'd also plump for Trent Boult's five for one spell against Australia. The sheer ''bloody hell there's another one gone" aspect of it, and, following Tim Southee's seven against England, was the moment we knew we could damage any batting side.

Andrew Alderson: The sixes from Williamson and Elliott to win against Australia and South Africa respectively. The theatre of those contests is surely the essence as to why we love sport. The composure of the batsmen will be recalled generations from now and the frenzied crowd reaction brought cricket alive as much as the feats of 1992. The "Sou-thee" chant at Wellington during his seven-for was also a stirring element to the tournament.

3: What is the one thing you would most like to change for the next tournament?

Dylan Cleaver: It's more what I wouldn't change. You have to keep the minnows and you've got to give them more meaningful cricket in the interim. Full member nations must start tagging on games against the Associates at either the start or end of bilateral tours. For the tournament itself, more days with two games. I love the channel surfing element and this tournament has to get shorter.

David Leggat: Trim some days off. That batch of days with one game, each involving a lesser nation must not be repeated. Keeping 14 teams is a no brainer to me. Sometimes you simply have to lump it when it comes to the odd beating of a lightweight, but they are making progress and must be given more opportunities. That responsibility sits squarely with the major nations, and there can be no wriggling out of it.

Andrew Alderson: A faster-moving tournament. Twelve teams (eight automatic and four qualifiers from a curtain-raiser to whet the appetite) could be a compromise for those demanding the status quo against the establishment trying to reduce entry to 10 teams. A dozen teams could be broken into pools of six. Even numbers are important so no-one has a lay-day and each team plays every four days or less. Fitness and squad depth should be rewarded. It's conditional on the lesser-ranked sides getting more experience against test nations. Tag limited overs games onto major tours.