The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 124

This week:

  • We look back on the Comm Games medal matches
  • We reflect on #B2022 more generally
  • We ask: what does it mean for cricket at the Olympics?

3 thoughts on “The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 124

  1. Did England miss Knight as discussed by Raf/Syd ?
    How do you measure that ? Well here goes.

    The key to T20 is scoring as many runs as possible as quickly as possible. 160 should a target for any innings – that’s at least 20 runs from at most 8 batsmen

    So lets assess based on scoring rate and scoring more or less than 20 runs. Let’s weight the cases as follows …………

    >= 133 S/R and >= 20 runs : 4 pts
    >= 133 S/R and < 20 runs : 3 pts
    100 < S/R = 20 runs : 3 pts
    100 < S/R < 133 and < 20 runs : 2 pts
    = 20 runs : 2 pts
    < 100 S/R and < 20 runs : 1 pts

    No method is perfect but I think this is reasonable.

    Apply this to England’s last 30 T20s and you get:-
    Capsey 2.83
    Knight 2.59
    Jones 2.46
    Wyatt 2.37
    Sciver 2.26
    Beaumont 2.21
    Dunkley 2.18
    Bouchier 2.00
    Brunt 2.00
    Winfield 2.00
    Wilson 2.00
    Smith 1.00

    So, ignoring any additional benefits related to captaincy etc, this does suggest England missed Knight a lot.

    Like

  2. Yes, I think if England knew that Knight would be missing from the whole Games schedule, Beaumont would have been in the squad. Looking back on the 3rd place game, England should maybe have bowled first as it was an early start and they had NZ skittled when bowling first a couple of days before. Let’s hope this is something that only makes Tammy more determined to come back stronger, we know she can do it.

    Like

  3. Regardless of your thoughts about McGrath’s late COVID-inclusion, some of the Umpire’s decisions, or the way India yet again grasped silver from the jaws of gold, one conclusion is common to all – Australia’s crown is just starting to slip a bit!

    What happened to those finals where they used to steamroller the opposition?

    Australia must have been desperate for McGrath to play. What does this say about their confidence in the rest of their squad? This must be the first occasion I’ve heard of where a player known to be COVID positive got to play. It seems ostensibly unfair, as earlier matches had seen other teams have to leave out players with COVID. I understand that the ICC and CWG committees etc were all consulted, but were India specifically? It would be interesting to know how happy they were with it. I’d be surprised if the answer from all the Indian players, staff and officials was “very”.

    On at least a couple of occasions one of the Umpires seemed to give byes for balls Australia bowled down the leg side. Unless I’m very much mistaken these deliveries should have be given as leg byes (if they contacted the batter’s pads) or wides (if they did not). This could have resulted in multiple extra runs for India.

    At the end of the 14th Over, India were 112/2 and needed 50 from 36 balls with 8 wickets in hand. It should have been easy peasy. Let’s face it – Australia did not bowl that well. Their batting is still good while 35-year old Haynes is there, but their bowling? Less reliable these days. They got away with one, to be frank. Their late, desperate fighting display just scraped over the line – this time! But it’s a sign, for sure, that India have progressed and done so very well. The late collapses are now happening against Australia, not England. All this talk of the Invincibles. For how long, though? The Aussies might not be so far ahead as everyone seems to think, for much longer.

    Like

Comments are closed.