New Zealand and South Africa gave the World Cup the game it had been crying for since the outset, a dramatic high scoring contest between two of cricket's giants.
It was the hosts who came through in the end, but years down the line, all who watched Tuesday's thriller at Auckland will remember it as one of the all-time classics. It had absolutely everything you could ask of a World Cup semifinal, and then some.
The ebbs and flows were too many to list and trust the weather to add a bit of spice. Undoubtedly, the rain Gods intervened at a bad time as far the Proteas were concerned. It could well have been a trickier chase had South Africa got a full 50 overs to bat. But AB de Villiers has nothing to regret in terms of opting to bat first. In a semifinal of a World Cup, you'd always go with that choice, try and post a good score and then look to capitalise on the pressure the chasing team is usually under.
De Villiers would also have taken note of the manner in which New Zealand struggled in some of the run chases they were involved in as well as the two occasions his own side fell short against India and Pakistan.
In fact, I thought South Africa did incredibly well to get what they got once play resumed. 298 from 43 overs, as we saw, was never going to be easy to chase. So no, nothing to fault them with the bat.
What will, however, haunt them from this match, is their overall showing in the department they pride themselves for being among the very best in. Two wasted run-out opportunities and a catch that went down due to a collision eventually sealed South Africa's fate, especially considering Grant Elliot, who smashed the winning six, was the lucky beneficiary from two of those lapses.
I also felt South Africa may have blundered with leaving the in-form Kyle Abbott out in favour of Vernon Philander who was returning from injury. The latter is usually their first choice, but then more often than not, the adage 'never tinker with a winning side' holds true.
We also witnessed two contrasting styles of captaincy. Kiwi skipper Brendon McCullum was, once again, at his attacking best. How often does one see four to five slips in an ODI game? But that's McCullum for you.
With the bat, he also assumed his responsibility by blasting a quickfire half-century that allowed the others a bit more time to settle before going for their shots. When you have a player with that ability, it can, as we saw, bring out the worst of even bowlers of the calibre of Dale Steyn.
If there's any scope to be critical of McCullum's captaincy, it's that he can be a bit too attacking for your liking at times. Whereas, in his counterpart de Villiers' case, when he needed to be attacking, he went on the defensive. I'm referring to his baffling move to replace Imran Tahir with JP Duminy, just when the latter's maiden over had helped build a bit of pressure on the Kiwi batsmen that led to Morne Morkel claiming two quick wickets. Taking wickets was always the key to South Africa's chances, and I felt de Villiers missed a trick by not persisting with his best spinner at a crucial stage.