Here's the great news.
Just days after that gloriously shambolic Cricket World Cup final, the good people of this great nation are already sleeping a lot easier.
England and New Zealand provided some of the best sporting drama you will ever see at Lord's. Sometimes the things that go horribly awry are what make something wonderfully right.
It made the competition, a stunning Wimbledon tennis final between, you guessed it, Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer, seem a little tame.
Who the heck needs a nicely played single through cover point during normal time to decide a World Cup final, not when you can have players, pundits and officials diving all over the place.
We're not drowning in waves of injustice or agony in good old New Zealand, and nor should we.
The main reason of course is that there is only one sport which rips the heart out of the people.
Should World Rugby commit such perceived sins against the men in black, they will be cursed for a thousand years. But in cricket, the temper is already subsiding.
For all of its problems, rugby is the sport which matters most to most New Zealanders, while cricket is - by comparison - a niche activity with a heartland centred on those few who drive an Audi through their ability to drive a hard bargain.
After the heartbreak: Where to next for 15 Black Caps?
Dignified or dreary? How to duck controversy like the Black Caps
Liam Napier: The five stages of Cricket World Cup grief
The ruling classes in this country love cricket, but they overestimate how deep and wide that passion goes.
The proletariat prefers sports where people run over each other rather than agonising about runs per over.
And anyway, on balance the tournament technicalities which allegedly brought New Zealand down at Lord's actually worked in the Black Caps' favour.
New Zealand got into the semifinals only on a technicality, an irrelevant and ridiculously complex run rate equation which saw them pip Pakistan.
The best and fairest tiebreaker system would use who-beat-who, in which case Pakistan would have pipped New Zealand for a semifinal place.
As for a fairer way to avoid a tied final in future, use the seedings.
And using those seedings, England – who also beat New Zealand in the round robin - deserved every advantage in the final.
New Zealand even got the rub of the green with the weather, avoiding a clash with a rampant Indian side and scoring an invaluable free point, which raises the question of whether reserve days should be built in.
Which leads to this: After what happened at Lord's this is the perfect time for an ODI re-think.
The ICC should use this tournament and the final chaos to re-write specific and easy-to-understand rules for the World Cup and one day cricket which will take it into a glorious future.
Don't just tinker but start ground up, for a modern world.
There is so much potential in the game beyond what we have seen, but it has never been able to properly cut the apron strings to test cricket.
As an example, and for what shaped as a true and ludicrous travesty, the brilliant New Zealand captain Kane Williamson faced suspension for a slow team over rate during the tournament.
People don't flock to the ground or turn on the television at all hours to watch one of the world's best players looking his phlegmatic best wielding a cup of tea in the stand.
Can you imagine the NBA going out of its way to sit LeBron James down during the basketball finals?
The potential suspension of Williamson is the type of situation that needs to be written out of the World Cup.
To cut to the chase: a solution might be to get some of those wise and wonderful ex-players who hit Twitter like Chris Gayle hits sixes together with current stars and officials to consider a revamp.
While they are at it, they could remove among the most meaningless rules of all, the one which said that one of the most vital runs in English cricket history, via a throw which hit Ben Stokes' bat, should not have counted because the batsmen hadn't crossed in time.
The world the ICC is trying to hold and attract to cricket through ODIs isn't interested in irrelevant test-type technicalities like that.
That most fans knew nothing of the rule, and the match commentators apparently forgot to analyse it, tells you plenty about where cricket is at, and where it needs to go.
In his inspiringly humble way, Williamson broke character and actually sounded gutted by the result.
However, his contention that no one actually lost the final , made in in the manner of a scratchy single rather than a slog for six, is simply wrong.
Under the rules as they stood – umpire error notwithstanding - England won it fair and square. And they are also very worthy champions.
And for what it's worth, I thought awarding Williamson player-of-the-tournament was highly contentious, a patronising consolation prize for New Zealand unworthy of a world tournament.
Williamson - whose interest in such awards amounts to a golden duck - was immense. His batting and captaincy was superb.
But how the heck did the extraordinary Bangladesh all-rounder Shakib Al Hasan miss out?
That was a travesty.