Women’s Ashes – 2nd ODI – Tammy Beaumont Runs The Runs But Jonassen Wins It For Australia

Tammy Beaumont blamed herself for England’s 2nd defeat in the space of 3 days at Leicester, telling us in the post-match: “I probably should have got a few more. I felt good but I got out at the wrong time – I should have been the one to manage the back end of that innings and get us up to 230/ 240 and give us a bit more of a chance.”

To be honest though, that feels a tad unjust – she wasn’t the one that failed! In fact, there is a fair argument that Beaumont should have been Player of the Match – it might be deeply unfashionable to hand the champagne to someone on the losing side, and taking nothing away from Delissa Kimmince, but Kimmince picked off a slogging tail, while Beaumont did the hard graft against Megan Schutt and Ellyse Perry.

TB got over half of England’s runs, and she ran hard to get them. Of each of her 6 ODI centuries, this contained the highest proportion of “run” runs, at 58%, with just 42% of her runs coming in boundaries. (Her other 5 hundreds average 46% “run” runs, and 54% boundaries.)

“I’m always trying to improve,” she said. “I’ve been working really hard with Ali Maiden on my balance, trying to score off more balls – I think that’s the first time I’ve got 100 in 100 balls.”

She thought right too – although two of her other tons ended with a higher strike rate, this was the only one where she actually passed the 100 mark in less than 100 balls… albeit only just – it was 99! (Maybe someone should buy her a Flake to make up for the lack of champagne?)

So where did England lose this match? Knight’s innings doesn’t look great in the scorebook – 17 off 47 balls at a Strike Rate of 36 – but she was clearly desperate to ensure that England didn’t lose another early wicket and end up reliving Tuesday’s collapse, and that was the right thing to do in the situation. And the tail didn’t wag, but you can’t expect it to every time – that’s why it’s a tail!

Overall then, the feeling has to be that England didn’t really “lose” the match so much as Australia “won” it, by batting sensibly at the end. The key player there was Jess Jonassen, who frustrated England 2 years ago in the Test at Canterbury, and did it again here. 31 off 34 balls doesn’t sound like a particularly decisive contribution, but having come in at a point where it could have been swinging back England’s way with 60 still required, Jonassen made sure that the run rate maintained that bit of impetus it still needed, without taking the risks that had seen England bowled out leaving balls on the pitch.

With the Aussies going 4-0 up, regaining the Ashes is an uphill struggle for England now. The Test isn’t technically a “must win” yet – if England win the 3rd ODI they could theoretically draw it and still claim the spoils if they win all the T20s, but the way things have gone so far, you’d have to say they probably aren’t the hottest favourites to do that unfortunately.


9 thoughts on “Women’s Ashes – 2nd ODI – Tammy Beaumont Runs The Runs But Jonassen Wins It For Australia

  1. This was a great shame after a good start. It was not so much that the tail had to wag again, but to bat sensibly and accumulate 50, 60 maybe even more in the last 10 or so overs. Yet again, we failed to bat out the full 50 overs. The manner of wicket loss was almost identical, swings across the line lofting simple catches to the Aussies, who did play well by the way. Surely Mr Robinson and his coaching staff work on rotating strike, take quick singles, try to get at least one a ball then a boundary whenever possible? By the way, NO boundary in the last 10 overs I believe? England are not far off being a good side, maybe use the remaining Ashes games to show how good they are collectively. Bat like the Aussies did yesterday to get over the line.


  2. England definitely lost this match – teams should be deemed to win matches if they play really well. The Aussies only had to play normal by their standards to win this one.

    England batted poorly (giving catching practice not least of their ‘sins’), they didn’t make the Aussies work for their wickets and dropped at least one vital catch. In fact, was I watching a re-run of the 1st ODI ?

    The solution isn’t about droppimg this person and selecting that person – on that basis we’ld be dropping some very experienced players. There is no ‘magic bullet’ player out there. These teams should be well matched if they both play to their potential – it’s just England are simply not doing so.


  3. I’m not as positive I’m afraid Syd. It’s looking bleak for England, but there will still be some good moments in the series to come, probably mostly fro Australia. How are England going to pick up points in this series? 2 poor-ish performances overall so far. But I think Australia look 15-20% better than England in all departments anyway, which may exceed the variation in performances from game to game. Even if England had scored 250, I think it still would have been chased down.


  4. For a while people remarked on how the gaps between the international countries were narrowing, as England started losing to the likes of Sri Lanka, South Africa and West Indies. However, do people think we are now returning to something like the situation earlier in this decade, when Australia were clearly the best, and England were noticeably better than everyone except Australia? Remember that England have had no issues dealing with the limited threat of New Zealand, South Africa and West Indies in the last two summers, and after a disappointing start, we were also beating India regularly by the end of the winter tour. Specifically regarding yesterday’s game, people say you can excuse the tail because you don’t expect them to make runs, but I would have expected them to play more sensibly and try to see out the 50 overs. If they had got out to unplayable balls then fair enough. Then in the chase, in one respect we were unlucky in that Perry looked to be out stumped all day long in my view, and Sue Redfern’s performances on the field and behind the TV in this international summer have certainly done nothing to advance the cause of women umpires. However, in another respect I think we were very lucky, as a number of our six wickets came from rank bad balls.


    • I agree that Perry should have been given out. The fact that Wilson’s LBW in the 1st ODI (which was a truly dreadful decision and far worse than the Perry decision) was given by a male umpire should ensure (along with the obvious fact that such errors are not biological) that any bad decisions Sue Redfern has given this summer is not attributed to her gender.


  5. Disappointing but it’s all about winning those little moments and Australia are doing that. Of course, it helps having players of Beth Mooney and Jess Jonassen’s quality coming in at 6 and 7.

    My worry in general is the gap between Australia and England and then to the other nations is widening and only going to get wider. Australia have by far the best setup which will give them the advantage in the short term but until other teams can put the same kind of resources in, probably the long term too.

    You can see the gap between Australia and England in the results over the last two years, England have lost a series in India and have also lost to New Zealand and South Africa whereas Australia have swept them all convincingly.

    Lastly, a random point, has Nat Sciver been dismissed sweeping on every occasion this summer? Maybe that’s something she needs to address.


  6. Interesting Australia have 4 left handed bats in their side and England dont have any.This is a massive advatage and affects bowlers lines and lengths as well as constant field position changes.


  7. It’s very depressing to be an England women fan right now. DRS is not the only thing that’s “DOA” – it would appear England’s Ashes chances are too.

    I enjoyed Beaumont’s century, she played excellently and looked in a different class. In fact, that was the problem – apart from her runs, and the possible exception of Wyatt, England were poor with the bat. To make it worse, apart from Shrubsole (although she was expensive) and the possible exceptions of Marsh and Brunt, they were poor with the ball as well.

    In previous series, getting Lanning and Perry out cheaply would have given England a great chance. But this Australian side keep coming at you as they lose more and more wickets – being 5, 6 or 7 wickets down doesn’t really affect their ability to pound runs quickly and put on partnerships. The lower order of Mooney, Gardner, Jonassen and Kimmince (at 9, yes 9!) can still get Australia out of any hole, and England have no answer to that. Those players would probably be no lower than 4, 5, 6 and 7 for England.

    The real problem here of course was the perennial one I always bang on about – namely England losing needless wickets instead of digging in, rotating strike and ensuring we bat out the overs. Jones, so recently a picture of confidence and dominance, now appears to be a rabbit caught in the headlights. Knight’s innings was somewhat painful to watch, she really struggled to time the ball then holed out needlessly just when she’d started to get cracking. It didn’t look great at all. Seems strange that she looked in such fine nick in the WI series. Every shot hit in anger by the lower order went in the air and got caught. The lower order collapse was embarrassing in the extreme, but Kimmince did bowl well.

    The only thing I can come up with for an explanation (apart from the Aussies just being better) is mental scarring on the England players from previous series, and in particular, the WT20 final. It’s interesting that the players who rely less on form and forget their mistakes, dealing with each ball on merit best (probably Beaumont and Wyatt) are the ones who did best in this match.

    I feel sorry for the England team in that they still have 5 more matches to play against this Australian side and seemingly no hope of winning any of them. There is a vast chasm between the 2 sides, make no mistake. This could end up being 16-0 to Australia. They could probably send Lanning and Perry home for a rest right now and still win the series.

    I always thought it could be about 12-4 to Australia coming into the series, but the gap is even bigger than I thought and England will have to improve to even get to that low bar. All the hype about it being a close series now seems hollow, and folly in the extreme.

    How could we change the squad to force a win in the third game? Whoever we bring in might struggle to make much difference. Maybe Elwiss? She’s probably the only remaining batsman that’s given the Aussies a few headaches in the past few years by stubbornly sticking around. I can’t see England batting out a day in the Test either. By the time the T20s come around, it might be all over, so maybe the Aussies will take their foot off the gas a bit for those. Seems a forlorn hope as coming into the series that’s exactly what they said they wouldn’t do.

    I console myself with the thought that at least England can beat all the other sides in world when it comes down to it. Hopefully there will be a review and demand for increased investment after all this, it may be the only good thing to come out of it from an England perspective.


Comments are closed.