Sunday, 26 January 2014

Women's Ashes 3rd ODI

The latest Random Rants™ from the #WomensAshes -

  • To be fair, this game was an accurate reflection of where these two teams are: close! 
  • But...
  • The selection of Amy Jones turned out to be a very poor decision in retrospect - fielding a 'hitter' over an additional bowling option might have made sense if England were chasing; but they chose to bat. Jones' batting was never used (see below) and Wyatt's bowling might have been handy (although... again... see below).
  • If Jones was going to play, then why was Brindle - the least 'hitty' player in England's line-up - sent in ahead of her in the final overs, when hitting was what was needed? England had already fiddled with their order to send Sciver in ahead of Brindle - they should have done so again and given Jones a chance. Jones would have at least scored runs or gotten out, and the latter would have left England no worse off than they were to be anyway.
  • Brindle scored at less than a run a ball in those final overs, even though there was batting (Jones) still to come. She was just playing her game, the way she always does I guess, but her inability to adjust arguably lost England this match.
  • I suppose the coaches would argue that fielding Wyatt is illogical when she isn't bowling well - and she isn't bowling well, let's face it. The person England really needed to take some pace off at the death was Holly Colvin. She wasn't available, obviously... but whose fault is that? Not Holly's, that's for sure! But arguably the England management must bear some responsibility for failing to provide the feasible career-path that might just have kept her in the game and seen her take the field on this tour.
  • Finally, some good news for those who like a flutter - Siddy Power - the entirely fictional betting arm of this blog - is now paying out on Ellyse Perry as Player of the Series - congrats Ellyse!

1 comment:

  1. The lack of 'pace off' bowling options could cost us this series. Presumably the selectors gambled that Wyatt was a better option than the untested Grundy (the only other spinner in the Winter Performance Elite Squad). That wasn't an unreasonable decision at the time but its got to be an issue that Hazell has turned out to be the only spinner choice.

    Several England batsmen seem unable to start fast. This doesn't matter if you hang around and then explode towards the end of your innings but when you don't, and several haven't, you end up consuming loads of balls for not much return. This could be an even bigger problem in the T20s.

    With the tail so lamentably failing to support Sciver in ODI2 I can understand why the selectors would want to bolster it and that meant Winfield (whom I would have chosen) or Jones. Jones scored 41 in her only previous ODI at a rate of 83.67 at No7 so perhaps that's why Jones got the nod.

    Maybe you have a point about Jones going in ahead of Brindle (and watching Brindle failing to get the ball off the square was hard) but the wider picture is that (a) we don't have the explosive hitters (ex Sciver) we need for a 10 over wallop. Where is the England 'Osbourne' (eg 40 from 25 balls) ? and (b) given (a), a higher order that didn't score quick enough to set the base for a 300 score.

    All in all, not a good performance, lots to consider, an Aussie team that is really going hard now but a Series that is starting to get tense - and that would become really tense if Aussie win the 1st T20.


    ReplyDelete