Is cricket still a batsman's game?

The hosts England won the 2019 World Cup by virtue of hitting 26 boundaries compared to 17 by the Blackcaps, which proved once again that "cricket is a batsman's game". 

Experts and many cricket fans from all over the world believe that the match didn't deserve a winner and that the trophy should have been shared.

While both the teams had same scores in the entire match including the super over, the result was given on the number of boundaries hit by the team, confirming the dominance of batsmanship in the sports.

Although it's all according to the ICC rules, why couldn't the result be finalised based on say, the number of wickets taken by the team, in which case New Zealand would have been the winner?

Just thinking from a New Zealand bowler's perspective, the overall contribution from them for this match stands nullified, as the only thing considered while deciding the result of the match was based upon the number of boundaries.

Although it is debatable, cricket has been a batsman's game for long. Its these batsmen-friendly laws which have influenced viewers to look upon batsmen as Gods and denying the bowlers with their due credit.

That's the sole reason, in a country like India where you have batting legends like Virat, Rohit, Shikhar, Dhoni all playing at the same time, you have just one Bumrah. There are not enough great bowling examples.

Its actually high time that ICC amends its rules and looks at both the aspects of game fairly by not glorifying just the boundaries and batsmanship.

This comes straight from a cricket fan who had started following this sport to witness the fierce rivalry between bat and ball and not just batsmanship dominating over bowling.